View Full Version : So who's gonna replace the Yuezhi?
oudysseos
02-09-2006, 23:56
Or is it a secret?
why do they need to be replaced? i think its fun to have a faction in the middle of nowhere...
PseRamesses
02-10-2006, 00:38
why do they need to be replaced? i think its fun to have a faction in the middle of nowhere...
Well, we´ve tried that "nowhere". Couldn´t we try out in the middle of "nowhere Sahara" next. I´m serious. I´d love to take charge of a highly mobile and deadly fast Bedouin cav/ camel army and raid the hell out of the Ptolemies and Carthagininans, wouldn´t you?
true, but I dont know anything about the Yuezhi I am mainly curious why they are being taken out.
oudysseos
02-10-2006, 00:47
I don't know if they are- but there is another thread on which the conclusion seems to be that they weren't present in our time period. And I think one of the dev team said that they're out- but I'm not sure. Who do you think should replace them if that is the case?
There are very few surprises left in EB - this may be one of them, the identity of who replace the Yuezhi.
oudysseos
02-10-2006, 01:05
I vote for the Hasmoneans/Judeans. Totally the wrong time I know- didn't Judah Maccabbee (sp?) kick Seleucid butt around 160 BC? But still I think a small but strong faction between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies would be interesting. Phalanx vs. Phalanx can be pretty dull sometimes. Though I have no idea what kind of units a Judean faction would have- probbably Phalanx. Maybe Zealots. Lots of light infantry skirmishers anyways.
Too bad they were usually controlled by one or the other successor state. Not only were they at a crossroads, but they apparently made pretty darn good soldiers. Not sure who I would suggest instead though...how about the Galatians!!! I could even help with research for them.
Speaking of things that are presently hidden, any chance we'll see any previews of new skins any time before the next patch arrives?
Big_John
02-10-2006, 03:30
the Aztecs.
VandalCarthage
02-10-2006, 04:13
So who's gonna replace the Yuezhi?
Or is it a secret?
Yes ~D I'm sure you guys will all really like the variety they add though ~;)
Though I have no idea what kind of units a Judean faction would have- probbably Phalanx. Maybe Zealots. Lots of light infantry skirmishers anyways.
Too bad they were usually controlled by one or the other successor state. Not only were they at a crossroads, but they apparently made pretty darn good soldiers.
Unfortunately the Jews were firmly under the control of the Ptolemies or the Seleukids at any given time, but our Ptolemaic faction had them under-represented. I've amended the "Ioudeaoi Taxeis" unit's description to better reflect the great later importance of Jews in the Ptolemaic administration. In 175, Onias IV had been deposed as High Priest by the Seleukids, leading his son Onias III to lead a fairly substantial group of Judeans into Ptolemaic Egypt, where Ptolemy VI Philometor allowed them to settle in Leontopolis, in the Fayyum (Krokodilopolis in particular), and even in Alexandreia (in which they actually self-administered a private section of the city). He and an aide, Dositheos, were actually given extremely high positions in the Ptolemaic government; Josephus even claims that they were charged with the administration of the entire kingdom and it's army... even Onias two sons, Ananias and Chalkias had military commands. So, the new unit description will hopefully reflect some of this influence.
I'm also editing the Hebrew ethnicity the Ptolemies have access to, and I'm hoping I'll be able to tie it to a reform, so that it can become more common later on. It'll also eventually have a lot of associative traits, relating to what the Greeks called the 'Cult of Yahweh' ~D
fallen851
02-10-2006, 05:02
the Aztecs.
Man you ruined my good joke of the day.
Oh well.
Big_John
02-10-2006, 05:09
Man you ruined my good joke of the day.
Oh well.it's one of the few things i'm good at. :bow:
Samurai Waki
02-10-2006, 07:37
It'd be fun playing as the Bedouins(sp?) or perhaps another successor state, or Ethiopia... but the Bedouins would be a good pick as they'd occupy that large area in the Middle East known as the Arabian Peninsula, where there are no factions, and no factions rarely go there until they've gained better ground elsewhere.
oudysseos
02-10-2006, 10:07
ONe could make a case for a Hellenic Cimmerian Bosporus faction between the Black Sea and the Caspian- the Spartocid Dynasty lasted until 110 BC- Paerisades II would be the faction leader at the time of EB ( I think). The kingdom would run from Tanais to Panticapaion. The dynasty suppopsedly came fom Thrace, had close ties to Athens with a lucrative trade in grain. There would be a very interesting mix of unit types- some Hellenic, some nomadic, some thracian. That'd be more interesting to me than far-away nomads, anyways, but de gustibus non est disputandum.
Kralizec
02-10-2006, 11:19
My guess is that the new faction is going to be in the same general area as the Sweboz, to provide some competition.
It's also possible that after the BI port, the Yuezhi will be an emerging faction. Just guesswork, but it would be a shame to lose them alltogether IMO.
My guess is that the new faction is going to be in the same general area as the Sweboz, to provide some competition.
I am agree with you.
Another option could be an Ireland faction or a Numidian one.
Time to time :2thumbsup:
PseRamesses
02-10-2006, 17:22
Hmm, seems to be three areas for the candidate: africa, arabia and central Europe unless they mess things up with yet another "Greek" faction. Has anyone considered an Iberian split? If I remember correctly there are some candidates.
Spendios
02-10-2006, 18:02
Sabeans were discussed some tige ago, I think that they will replace the Yuehzhi and prevent Arabia from being a Ptolemaioi/Seleucid stronghold.
Kralizec
02-10-2006, 18:44
Hmm, seems to be three areas for the candidate: africa, arabia and central Europe unless they mess things up with yet another "Greek" faction. Has anyone considered an Iberian split? If I remember correctly there are some candidates.
I raised the possibility of Iberia in another thread and I think it would be cool, but probably a lot of extra work for the team. Besides, wouldn't the unit roster be nigh identical to the existing Iberians anyway?
I have been following all the threads on this topic and seems pretty set that the Sabeans are probably going to be the new faction. There are no other Germanic factions that would even come close to the influence and power necessary to challenge the Sweboz and except for the Greek fanatics, everyone else is tired of Hellenic factions. I mean, they already added Epiros for variation. It seems the Numidians are out because they just weren't powerful enough and weren't very well organized. The Sabeans seem just about right as they had quite a bit of influence over trade in the region and will fill a nice gap in the map. I could be wrong, but I think that is who will be there.
If you really want to play the Yuezhi, go check out the late period project and help them. The yuezhi will definitely be in that one and even more dominant.
PseRamesses
02-10-2006, 19:15
It would be great if The Sabaeans were included. I second that vote.:2thumbsup:
Malrubius
02-10-2006, 19:17
What about the Sakae (Scythians) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka) in the east, or the Lugii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugii) in Europe (a kind of Germano-Celtic mix)?
And what's wrong with more Hellenistic factions, anyway? There's at least 2 or 3 possibilities, there. There's the Belgae, too.
RandyKapp
02-10-2006, 19:44
I am agree with you.
Another option could be an Ireland faction or a Numidian one.
Time to time :2thumbsup:
Problem with an Irish faction is that it never realy existed, Ireland at the time was always split into 4-5 or more smaller kingdoms.
oudysseos
02-10-2006, 19:59
Probably true- but there aint't a hell of a lot of info about the political groups in Ireland ca. 272 BC. Irish written sources only go back to 5th century AD.
Kralizec
02-10-2006, 20:08
What about the Sakae (Scythians) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka) in the east, or the Lugii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugii) in Europe (a kind of Germano-Celtic mix)?
And what's wrong with more Hellenistic factions, anyway? There's at least 2 or 3 possibilities, there. There's the Belgae, too.
I'd love Pergamon to be in, but with the faction limit and the fact that there already so many Hellenic factions I don't think it's justified.
Besides, woudln't that cause problems with culture grouping?
I think the Lugii are a pretty good idea...
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2006, 21:23
I vote for the Sabeans. The seleucids shouldn't end up in the arabian peninsula every time their empire starts to crumble. Plus it would add camels and other nice variation to an area otherwise heavily filled with hellen styled armies. Will certainly make my future planned seleucid campaign more interesting...
VandalCarthage
02-11-2006, 00:28
Plus it would add camels and other nice variation to an area otherwise heavily filled with hellen styled armies. Will certainly make my future planned seleucid campaign more interesting...
The only potential appearance of camels in EB are as a Nabataean AoR. Of course, I wont confirm or deny all this wild speculation ~;)
PseRamesses
02-11-2006, 11:16
The only potential appearance of camels in EB are as a Nabataean AoR. Of course, I wont confirm or deny all this wild speculation ~;)
Good, its a bit early for camel use.
Samurai Waki
02-11-2006, 11:41
I wasn't even very concerned about camels. I just want to play an army in the middle east, that is light, highly mobile force, good for making quick attacks and then retreating... I guess the Pahlava are pretty good at that...but I want to harass the Seleucids and Ptolemids from the Arabian Peninsula.
PseRamesses
02-11-2006, 12:01
I wasn't even very concerned about camels. I just want to play an army in the middle east, that is light, highly mobile force, good for making quick attacks and then retreating... I guess the Pahlava are pretty good at that...but I want to harass the Seleucids and Ptolemids from the Arabian Peninsula.
Sign me up for that campaign Wakizashi! :2thumbsup:
why do they need to be replaced? i think its fun to have a faction in the middle of nowhere...
There was a lot of discussion in this topic (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=58755): basically, the argument runs that the Yeuzhi most likely were not on the EB campaign map (although this is debatable) and even if they were, they were far more concerned with their enemies in the east than with expanding to the west. They did eventually turn west, and conquered Bactria, but only after having been defeated in the east. To properly represent their situation, the map has to be expanded to include China and their other Eastern enemies.
Sparta would be nice
Sparta on it's own doesn't stand a chance. It is not the power it used, not by a long shot. The only way the Macedonians are going to find a strong challenge in conquering Greece is to place an Hellenic union on their path.
Personally, I think another German faction might be nice, or else another African or Arabian faction. As it is, these areas are conquered a bit too rapidly.
the_handsome_viking
02-11-2006, 18:36
What is the criteria for faction picking?
I mean I personally would like to have some way to make more Caledonian armies appear, so that it could really hit home just exactly why the Romans built Hadrians wall.
but by making them their own faction youd ultimatly be saying "this group of people could take over the world" and of course as we all know the people from that area of the world eventually do go on to take over the world after they mixed with the Irish "scotti" but thats besides the point.
The point is how much do we really know about the Caledonions? they were iron poor, didn't have much in the way of armor because of this, kind of like the Germanic tribes, but once again, despite this fact the Germanic tribes do go on to do really great things.
I guess from a gameplay point of view it would have to be a historical group of people that could produce heavy infantry or cavalry decent buildings and ultimatly be capable of taking over vast amounts of land or possibly even the entire known world.
what about the mauryans?(sp?)
What is the criteria for faction picking?
Khelvan answered this question some time ago when defending the inclusion of the Casse (link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59394)):
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.
This answers Jerby's question as well.
the_handsome_viking
02-11-2006, 21:50
Khelvan answered this question some time ago when defending the inclusion of the Casse (link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59394)):
This answers Jerby's question as well.
Thanks a lot.
the Aztecs.
It's not going to be the Aztecs for a very good reason(other then they lived on the other side of the world).They didn't exist in 270 bc.They started in the 13th centrury A.D. but not in 270 bc.But the mayans lived in 1000 bc~D
Could you put these faction in the mod:
The Indus valley civiltion
the aliens that built stone henge(please put them in they had a great impact on the history of the roman impire)~D
Samnium
Cantabri
Arverni
Sequani
Suebi
Belgae
Helvetii
Parisii
Could you put these faction in the mod:
The Indus valley civiltion
the aliens that built stone henge(please put them in they had a great impact on the history of the roman impire)~D
Samnium
Cantabri
Arverni
Sequani
Suebi
Belgae
Helvetii
Parisii
Are you aware of the existance of the faction-limit? The game cannot accomodate more than 21 factions, despite the efforts of many modders.
Are you aware of the existance of the faction-limit? The game cannot accomodate more than 21 factions, despite the efforts of many modders.
So were just some possible suggestion.I wasn't suggesting for them all being put int he game.
So were just some possible suggestion.I wasn't suggesting for them all being put int he game.
Ah, I see. Well, part of your list is already implemented (silly me didn't even review it properly :embarassed: ). Both Suebi (Sweboz) and Averni are in the mod; Cantabri are IIRC part of the Iberian coalition; and the Parisii fall under either Aedui or Averni alliance. The Samnites were subject to Rome in the mod's time frame, though they did manage one major uprising.
The three remaining tribes are in an area that is already very very crowded (and many people feel there already are a bit too many Celtic factions). Off course, if you can provide arguments why these should be represented as factions, I think the EB team would be very interested. After all, the Belgae were seriously considered as an alternative to the Casse.
padishahmusab
02-14-2006, 23:58
ooooh it would be cool if there would be an Indian civilization
Imagine.. thousands of not as strong soldiers and hundreded of horses, chariots and Elehpants... that would be quite the faction
You could just insert a small bit of the Mauryans, but still it would chnage the game nicely
Ragabash
02-15-2006, 00:04
As Scott mentioned, Samnium would be great faction to replace Yuezhi. What I know about them ( what really is not so much) they seem to have inresting troops, history and big role to Roman, and Greek world. :book:
QwertyMIDX
02-15-2006, 00:52
For the 100th time, no Mauryans in EB, too much of their empire is off the map.
The Samnites are a conquered subject people of the romans by 272.
LordElrond
02-15-2006, 01:02
Hehe, good thing EB isn't controlled by whims of the masses. ~;)
Ragabash
02-15-2006, 03:19
Hehe, good thing EB isn't controlled by whims of the masses. ~;)
That is true, I myself am one of those :saint:
But remember not all of us are historian professors, like myself I enjoy history. Stuff I know about ancient times are based to my school education, many tv documents (what gives only basics of show's current subject), and few "light" history books. I would consider myself as amateur historian, with knowledge of most basics but if you ask anything that goes beyond surface such as how some armies fought, diplomacy or even some basics I am not too familiar, I quickly put my finger to my mouth and try to evade question :laugh4:
Well... I have always liked history, no matter what period. I only wish that many great books that inrest me will be translated to my language :book:
Thanks for EB team correcting me and other people. As EB members have shown, misunderstoods in history, corrections etc. can be done politely without mocking person who was wrong. Thanks again for mod, and of course for educating me :2thumbsup:
QwertyMIDX
02-15-2006, 05:00
If you'd like to read more on the Samnite wars Livy records the narrative (although the accuracy of his narrative is always in question). You can access it online here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0026;query=toc;layout=;loc=4.6
Books 8 through 10.
Arverni
Sequani
Suebi
Belgae
Helvetii
Parisii
Arverni are already in, the Sequani are their subjects. Suebi are the Sweboz. The Belgae were seriously considered but not taken. The Helveti were subjects of Noricum who later migrated (they'd not actually be indepedent at the outset of EB, they'd be part of Noricum), so Noricum would be possible, but was incredibly tiny, though they would have some neat stuff. The Parisi were subjects of the Aedui in Gaul, and the British Parisi were tiny and severely overshadowed by the Brigantes.
PseRamesses
02-15-2006, 14:38
For the 100th time, no Mauryans in EB, too much of their empire is off the map.
The Samnites are a conquered subject people of the romans by 272.
Totally agree with that. IMO there´s three areas that neds balancing: Arabia, Africa and central/ eastern Europe. Earlier there has been some serious discussions to include the Sabaeans in Arabia. Personally I miss the Numidians but no comeback for them seems to be emminent and to my knowledge there was no uniform tribe in and around Bohemia or eastern Europe that deserves representation. This is why my vote goes to the Sabaeans.
LordElrond
02-15-2006, 15:08
I think EB already has a faction in mind themselves, they think its fun to watch us run around flailing in the dark as they plot their next move to make fans even more anxious/desperate for the newer versions of the game. Lord Khelvan controls it all.... blame him. :laugh4:
(Or thank him, as you see fit.) :bow:
VandalCarthage
02-16-2006, 03:50
Actually, our decision was very democratic. We even had a second vote with just the two finalists from the first. I was very proud to be an EBerican, exercising my right to vote.
In any case, you guys needn't rule out the possibility that one of the factions you've been talking about here isn't the one we decided ~:cheers: Speculation is good! Makes it seem more exciting when you do find out ~D
Samurai Waki
02-16-2006, 04:23
I third Sabaeans.
Bithynia + Galatia? I don't know if the link there was all that strong by 272, but that could be very cool. Or do you think you would also need to include Pergamon to be able to represent that situation well?
Kyrenaika? Help break up N. Africa, and would have the same slow-down effect toward the Ptolemies as including Sabaeans. Then again, were the Yuezhi barbarian culture in the ob? I suppose that wouldn't work too well for Kyrenaika.
Steppe Merc
02-17-2006, 03:35
Yuezhi were the same culture as Parthia and Sarmatians (Eastern).
I like the Sabean idea...
they'd be a nice buffer against expansion into the southeast, a real faction instead of individual rebel towns that you can pick off at your leisure. I think that area of the map empties out a bit anyway
If EB had a massive vote in their lil HQ It ought to have been exciting...so any people, with so many, many different interests....can we at least hear who didn't make it? or some occultus or something?
Ragabash
02-17-2006, 15:47
I hope to see some sort of Fantasy Faction, EB would put every fantasy unit from vanilla to same faction. Think about it really. Your army charges at Roman first line of Hastati with screaming women, flanking with flaming pigs and bringing last wave of war dogs to crush enemy lines. :laugh4:
PseRamesses
02-17-2006, 20:50
I hope to see some sort of Fantasy Faction, EB would put every fantasy unit from vanilla to same faction. Think about it really. Your army charges at Roman first line of Hastati with screaming women, flanking with flaming pigs and bringing last wave of war dogs to crush enemy lines. :laugh4:
You, you..... trickster! :laugh4:
Rodion Romanovich
02-17-2006, 21:02
or some occultus or something?
My infiltrators in the EB team have revealed that the new faction will be the secretum
PseRamesses
02-18-2006, 14:07
My infiltrators in the EB team have revealed that the new faction will be the secretum
...located in the obscure province of Terra Incognita!
Ragabash
02-18-2006, 14:44
...located in the obscure province of Terra Incognita!
Led by master of universe, Hypnotoad (http://web.qx.net/lhaddix/htoad.htm)
PseRamesses
02-18-2006, 22:01
Led by master of universe, Hypnotoad (http://web.qx.net/lhaddix/htoad.htm)
Hail Toad, hail Toad!
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 09:34
Hail Toad, hail Toad!
For some reason I am imagining giant toad-mounted zamburak... :/
Pirates (As sub slavs faction)
;)
the_handsome_viking
02-27-2006, 16:53
I'm Spartacus!!!
No, I'm Spartacus
everybody is Spartacus, okay?
Now please let us not go to far with the spamming, will we?
Spartiate
03-03-2006, 21:11
I wouldn't mind seeing the Samnites as a faction in Italy but it would be outside the starting time of the mod as they were finally beaten some time around 290 B.C.I reckon it could be pre-Islamic Arabs or even the Saka or Sakae who were still giving the Parthians trouble in later years.
I'm gonna bet on an Arabian faction.
1: Yuezhi have eastern culture
2: I remember an EB team member, I think Khevlan, saying they were going to do something with the Arabian peninsula
3: Arabia is just really, really open
antiochus epiphanes
03-04-2006, 06:30
its going to bet its the sabeans, or maybe the belgae?
or sakae, massagetae, numidians,nabataens,
i really cant think of anyone else than that.....
GodEmperorLeto
03-04-2006, 18:33
I think the Sabaeans would be the best choice for a faction. They fill a vacant quarter of the map, and would prevent the Seleucids and Ptolemies from rolling over Arabia too easily.
Belgae, Nabateans, Numidians, none of them were unified or powerful enough in the 270s BC to be of any consequence. Adding them would be doing the same as adding the Yuezhi: putting a faction in place where there really wasn't one at the time the game opens.
PseRamesses
03-09-2006, 17:51
WHEN will the Yuezhi be replaced? When EB port to BI or? I was under the impression that they were to be removed when the patch came out but obcviously I got it wrong. So does anyone know? Thx.
I think the Sabaeans would be the best choice for a faction. They fill a vacant quarter of the map, and would prevent the Seleucids and Ptolemies from rolling over Arabia too easily.
Belgae, Nabateans, Numidians, none of them were unified or powerful enough in the 270s BC to be of any consequence. Adding them would be doing the same as adding the Yuezhi: putting a faction in place where there really wasn't one at the time the game opens.
Well, that's not totally true about the Belgae. They were unified enough to threaten the Aedui just shortly before the start of the game, but the Carnutes stomped them firmly and chased many of them off, so they were in a weakened state anyway, and their unity after that would be questionable since they would likely be disenchanted by their failure.
antiochus epiphanes
03-12-2006, 08:29
well has anyone noticed vandal carthages sig?
and i quote:
"Romani and Bahaltn Faction Coordinator "
hmmn who are the bahaltn?
Baldrick
03-13-2006, 12:08
Don't get to excited it appears to be Yiddish and possibly something to do with hiding...Occultus all over, but probably a clue :2thumbsup:
We've already made our changes to the Sahara and Arabian deserts; you can see where we consolidated these dead areas into one big province each and added new provinces elsewhere on the map.
As to the actual faction placement, it will depend on several things, including when we have some unique units made for the new faction. It may wait until our move to 1.5; this makes the most sense as we won't have to fart around with more culture transfers.
Avicenna
03-14-2006, 18:56
Sparta would be nice
Sparta was crushed long before: in 371 BC.
Shortly after, they dismantled the agoge (their soldiering school if you like) and lost their helots (similar to slaves) so their whole system collapsed, the elite ruling class were too few and the workers just left. Sparta now had nothing. Not even their soldiers.
Teleklos Archelaou
03-14-2006, 19:19
I guess that's how the spartans in the year our game starts managed to push back Pyrrhos from sacking their town and then followed it up with a campaign that faltered at Corinth when their king was slain. It was far less than it may have been earlier, but Sparta was still there, the soldiers were still there (if often fighting as mercs too, to try and make up for the loss of income that losing the helots brought on), and the agoge was revitalized also. The truth lies somewhere between extremes (e.g., 'had nothing...not even soldiers').
Trithemius
03-14-2006, 22:42
We've already made our changes to the Sahara and Arabian deserts; you can see where we consolidated these dead areas into one big province each and added new provinces elsewhere on the map.
The desert areas are not going to be further consolidated are they?
As to the actual faction placement, it will depend on several things, including when we have some unique units made for the new faction. It may wait until our move to 1.5; this makes the most sense as we won't have to fart around with more culture transfers
Does EB need more factions, really? There are already tonnes to play (or destroy...)! :)
The desert areas are not going to be further consolidated are they?Nope.
Does EB need more factions, really? There are already tonnes to play (or destroy...)! :)We will once the Yuezhi are gone.
Trithemius
03-14-2006, 23:08
Nope.
Phew!
We will once the Yuezhi are gone.
I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth! More factions is a good thing! I just was not sure why there was a neccessity for another faction - is it a design preference or something that the engine needs to work properly?
We would have 40 factions if we could.
Does 1.5 allow for "emerging factions" like in BI? If so, it would be nice if the Yuezhi could be depicted in this way. They have some cool units and I think that they were pretty important by the end of EB's time frame.
QwertyMIDX
03-15-2006, 02:40
We would have 100 factions if we could.
Trithemius
03-15-2006, 02:54
We would have 100 factions if we could.
How many provinces are there in EB?
pezhetairoi
03-15-2006, 03:01
...two hundred, thereabouts :D
QwertyMIDX
03-15-2006, 04:57
299 I think, I'm pretty sure that's the province limit.
GodEmperorLeto
03-15-2006, 06:56
We would have 100 factions if we could.
And if you did, I would sacrifice bulls in your honor and worship you as gods walking upon the earth.
'We would have 100 factions if we could.'
Does this mean you are eventually going to fill all 21 faction slots?
We've filled all of the slots we can use. We have 20 factions.
oudysseos
03-16-2006, 00:01
Have you thought of pulling back on the playable factions and splitting up the rebels? If you had two or three nonplayable 'rebel' factions you could differentiate them by region or culture, so someone could be at war with the rebel faction in their own area but not with rebel cities on the other side of the map. With two rebel factions you could have East/West and with three you could have Europe, Asia and Africa. It would make trading and diplomacy more interesting- as the Romans you could bribe the african rebels to attack the Carthaginians while fighting the rebels in Europe. I'd enjoy that more than having another playable faction- for me 18 or 19 is enough choice. If you lose the Yuezhi and either the Iberians, Casse or Armenians then you could do it. I know every faction is somebody's favourite but there are limits that we have to live with. So?
Have you thought of pulling back on the playable factions and splitting up the rebels? If you had two or three nonplayable 'rebel' factions you could differentiate them by region or culture, so someone could be at war with the rebel faction in their own area but not with rebel cities on the other side of the map. With two rebel factions you could have East/West and with three you could have Europe, Asia and Africa. It would make trading and diplomacy more interesting- as the Romans you could bribe the african rebels to attack the Carthaginians while fighting the rebels in Europe. I'd enjoy that more than having another playable faction- for me 18 or 19 is enough choice. If you lose the Yuezhi and either the Iberians, Casse or Armenians then you could do it. I know every faction is somebody's favourite but there are limits that we have to live with. So?It is not really a question of favorite factions. There may be some merit in your suggestion, but I see a number of major problems. For example, your idea could well lead to pooling together a number of historically independent polities (tribes, kingdoms, etc..) in a single faction. That is a very ahistorical representation and is likely to generate ahistorical dynamics. Both things are, by principle, anathema in EB. The behavior of a faction, even if it is supposed to depict rebels, is totally different from that of the true rebels and the same goes for the behavior of other factions (and the rebels themselves) towards it. Where historically a faction expanded by conquering disunited neighbors one by one, it would now look elsewhere for conquest if you artificially unite said neighbors.
Second, we have a substantially larger map, so we have more interesting peoples that did relevant things in history. Some of those "relevant things" can only be represented in the game using factions. Lots of things you just can't replicate with the rebels. So, to achieve our stated goal of offering a accurate historical picture that develops into historically plausible scenarios as the game progresses, we pretty much need all the factions we can get. I don't think we are willing to lose the ability to bring true historical forces into the game and spend those very valuable faction slots in ahistorical rebel confederations.
So, all faction slots are required for polities that really existed and contributed in a significant way to shape history. It almost follows from that definition that they should be fun to play and that we will work hard on them because we have to represent them adequately. Therefore, we make them all playable.~:)
Baldwin of Jerusalem
03-16-2006, 19:49
Numidia needs to return in place of the Yuezhi. Numidia was Carthages main competitor in Africa and long survived it with Kings such as Jugurtha and Juba fighting wars against Rome during this timeframe. Why it was dropped is quite beyond me. It also would help to fill the yawning void in the interior of Africa, although the map now extends so far south that Im not really certain how that particular problem can be solved properly. Certainly it isnt enough to have that huge and hostile expanse of earth divided up between Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt, who were both, to the best of my knowledge, Mediterranean based animals. If the map went any further they'd have to start thinking about adding the Zulus. lol
While splitting the rebels by region doesn't seem right, how often do rebels show up in the homelands of factions? A second, playable rebel faction that appears at certain times to give you the ability to play as a revolt or even civil war, such as spartacus, would certainly make for an interesting game. I do realize how much work this would probably prove to be, but I'm just putting the idea out there.
What was the political stance of native africans? Would it be possible to create a faction that, is weak for its beginning, can eventually overcome the invasion of Carthage and Ptolemy, and will adopt styles of troops from other factions, to be able to contend with factions that have developed into true empires. Of course, it would be nice to see Arabia filled, instead of just being a part of the map where factions can hide.
Teleklos Archelaou
03-16-2006, 20:31
Simply put, we want new factions too much to do this. There's no way the members would vote to have a latent or emerging faction when there are ones in 272 we want to see and play. :grin:
Numidia needs to return in place of the Yuezhi. Numidia was Carthages main competitor in Africa and long survived it with Kings such as Jugurtha and Juba fighting wars against Rome during this timeframe. Why it was dropped is quite beyond me.
I can't answer for the EB team, but I think it is because Numidia didn't really qualify as world-power material. They were relatively disunited and mainly appear in history as allies or enemies of Carthago or Rome; not because of anything else. Yes, they were a torn in Rome's side for some time, but mostly they stood in the shadow of the big regional powers.
Baldwin of Jerusalem
03-18-2006, 14:47
Hmmm... It just seems to me to be odd not to include it with all that space going to waste in Africa. Well, thats putting it simply actually, I do believe that Numidia qualifies as a united enough Kingdom to be included.
Hmmm... It just seems to me to be odd not to include it with all that space going to waste in Africa. Well, thats putting it simply actually, I do believe that Numidia qualifies as a united enough Kingdom to be included.
I wouldn't really know about that, but I am under the impression that Numidia was regularly split in two or three kingdoms. Anyway, Africa is not the only big empty space on the map.
"Filling a big space" has never been a parameter for us in choosing factions. In addition, much of the space in Africa is dead, with the Sahara being a province that gives negative bonuses and is worth little.
Hmmm... It just seems to me to be odd not to include it with all that space going to waste in Africa. Well, thats putting it simply actually, I do believe that Numidia qualifies as a united enough Kingdom to be included.
I think there's quite a lot of space in the far east, the northern steppe and the Arabian peninsula too ...
Beserker King
03-20-2006, 20:55
:idea2:
I reckon a second british faction to rival the expansion of the casse is best. The casse usually end up with all of britain and then stay put... not really very HISTORICALLY accurate :book:
Please consider this... :laugh4:
:idea2:
I reckon a second british faction to rival the expansion of the casse is best. The casse usually end up with all of britain and then stay put... not really very HISTORICALLY accurate :book:
Please consider this... :laugh4:
Only the start point is meant to be historically accurate. After that its all up to the player and the cpu.
Foot
oudysseos
03-20-2006, 23:07
Having played a bit now as KH, Carthage and Ptolemies, my pick for a new faction would be a 'Mini' faction like the Galatians at Ankyra or the Attalids at Pergammon, or even another Latin/Italian faction (Samnites?).
Not every faction has to be poised for or even capable of world domination- I think it would be fun, challenging and interesting to play a faction that's at the centre of world events (i.e. not off in a corner like the Casse or Yeuzhi) but is small and in a precarious position. 'Victory' could be achieved simply by surviving for a certain number of years.
I'd still support Pergamenes or a Bithynia-Galatian alliance (though I think the latter had pretty much been in tatters since the Elephant Battle). I mean, who doesn't want more factions duking it out in Asia Minor?
Besides, the Bithynia-Galatian thing would give some interesting government options: tribal rule, king's rule, tribal overlordship, and some sort of tribute-paying gov't.
Trithemius
03-21-2006, 00:36
Having played a bit now as KH, Carthage and Ptolemies, my pick for a new faction would be a 'Mini' faction like the Galatians at Ankyra or the Attalids at Pergammon, or even another Latin/Italian faction (Samnites?).
Not every faction has to be poised for or even capable of world domination- I think it would be fun, challenging and interesting to play a faction that's at the centre of world events (i.e. not off in a corner like the Casse or Yeuzhi) but is small and in a precarious position. 'Victory' could be achieved simply by surviving for a certain number of years.
This is a neat idea, and would be great if there was an unlimited number of factions (and people to research them ;)), but I am not sure that it is the best use of a 'faction-slot' or people's time to make a faction that isn't ever going to appeal to the megalomaniacal inclinations I suspect we all share. I might be interesting to have a survival type game, but I would rather play around with factions that have the possibility (even if they didn't make use of it historically) to be almost as impressive as the Romans were.
Trithemius
03-21-2006, 00:37
I'd still support Pergamenes or a Bithynia-Galatian alliance (though I think the latter had pretty much been in tatters since the Elephant Battle). I mean, who doesn't want more factions duking it out in Asia Minor?
Besides, the Bithynia-Galatian thing would give some interesting government options: tribal rule, king's rule, tribal overlordship, and some sort of tribute-paying gov't.
This would be pretty neat, and is less likely to be immediately squished by powerful neighbours than the Samnites would (Rome and Epirus? Ouch!).
oudysseos
03-21-2006, 00:48
Yeah the Samnites are probably not very viable (they didn't make it in the real world after all) but I have to say that in three different campaigns of mine the CPU Epirotes bit the dust pretty early on.
Anyway I think Galatians would makea cool smaller faction. Let them conquer Bythnia if they can.
I reckon a second british faction to rival the expansion of the casse is best. The casse usually end up with all of britain and then stay put... not really very HISTORICALLY accurate :book:
This was suggested some time ago, but the problem is that no other British tribe ever came near uniting the isle, and just expending a faction slot to provide a speedbump for the Casse seems like a waste. Anyway, there are already three Celtic factions and this new British one would be almost identical (both in unit selection as in the campaign) to the Casse.
I like the idea of a mini-faction in the middle of the big guys, but given the A.I.'s preprogrammed desire to turn against the player this may not work. Samnium is not an option because it doesn't exist anymore at the mod's start; and the Samnites spend most of the mod's timeframe in Roman service (except during the Socii Wars).
oudysseos
03-21-2006, 17:41
Then how about Syracuse as a mini faction? The more I think about it the better it looks: big city, lots of resources, well fortified, right smack in the middle of everything. In the EB timeframe Syracuse was still independent in 272 BC but played a major role in the geopolitics of the time despite its small size. In 271 Pyrrhus was called in to raise a siege by the Mamertines and in 269 Hiero II came to power. Syracuse was courted by both Carthage and Rome and was very important during the second punic war, and it wasn't until 211 BC that the city finally fell to the Romans. This is a huge potential for a fascinating mini-faction that could have a big impact on the game even as an AI faction, depending on who they support (Rome, Carthage or Epirus). Its strong fortifications make it a viable faction for survival, especially if you include a few of Archimedes' war machines, and as a major trading port we could have a classic small island naval power (Rule Britannia!!).
Obviously basically a Greek faction, although with strong Italian and even North African influences. If they managed to gain control of all Sicily with its resources, then you could have a potentially major power. After all, not long before the EB timeframe Syracuse actually invaded Africa during a war with Carthage!!!
PseRamesses
03-21-2006, 22:38
Being intrigued by an early posters hint in this thread that the possibility of the Sabaeans will replace the Yuezhi in the future I´ve done tons of research on this faction. The more I find/ read the more I get facinated. None of the proposed factions in this thread (except Numidia maybee) had such impact on its surroundings, international trade and wealth as the Sabaeans did. And they lasted for 1500 years. Give me any faction that could match this I dare you.
Here´s a brief summary and some links. Do a simple google on "Sheba", "Sabaeans", "Saba" or "history of Yemen" will give you hundreds of quality sites.
All Semitic people have their beginnings in the Arabian peninsula; but the great Semitic cultures and civilizations of the early period belong to emigrants, all those who left the Arabian peninsula for Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Africa. It is a great irony of history, then, that the most influential of Semitic cultures would not come from an emigrant people, but from Semites living in the very heart of their origin place.
The Arabian peninsula is probably the last place one would nominate as a cradle of the most influential of human cultures, for it is a harsh and demanding place to live. As a land mass, it is separated from its parent continent, Africa, and from Asia by the Red Sea in the west and the Persian Gulf in the east. Although it is surrounded on three sides by water, there are no good harbors, save for Aden, and both the Red Sea and Persian Gulf can be treacherous. The overwhelming geographical aspect of the Arabian peninsula is water, or rather the lack of water.
The Arabian peninsula can be divided into two distinct climactic and geographical zones. In the south is an area along the coast of the Arabian Sea that gets regular rain and has an astonishing variety of plant life. This is the Arabia of our mythology, the Arabia of wealth, tropical plants, cities, frankincense and myrrh. From a very early period, the south of Arabia was heavily populated by sedentary populations living in cities and relying on agriculture. Many of these civilizations were very wealthy and powerful, and Semitic peoples in Africa largely owe their origin to these privileged southerners.
Northern Arabia—that is, all of Arabia north of the southern coast, is one of the most inhospitable places on earth. To the east is a vast desert—one of the largest continuous areas of sand in the world—bordered by arid steppes in the west. The western portion of northern Arabia consists of mountains and steppes. Across this vast land, there are no rivers to connect peoples together. While the people in the south have historically lived close together and in constant contact, the people in the north live far apart and in relative isolation.
The most forbidding part of northern Arabia is the expanse of sand desert on the eastern side. There is little or no precipitation and so no support for agriculture—the only substantial flora in eastern Arabia is the date palm, a plant magnificently adapted to an arid climate. This area throughout almost all of human history has been inhabited by nomadic, pastoralist Arabs called Bedouins who lived in small, tightly-knit tribal groups. The western coast is slightly less forbidding and the Arabs that settled there lived in sedentary and larger tribal groups.
These two regions, the south and the north, were homes to two entirely separate Semitic peoples: the Sabaeans in the south and the Arabs in the north
SABAEANS. The ancient name of the people of Yemen (q.v.) was Sab (biblical Sheba) ; and the oldest notices of them are in the Hebrew Scriptures. The list of the sons of Joktan in Genesis (Gen). x. 26-29 contains in genealogical form a record of peoples of South Arabia which must rest on good information from Yemen itself. Many of these names are found on the inscriptions or in the Arabic geographers Sheha (Saba), Hazarmaveth (Ija~ramut), Abimael (Abimeathtar), Jobab (Yuhaibib, according to Halevy), Jerah (Waraki of the geographers), Joktan (Arab Qal~tan; waqata=qa~zata). On the other hand, the names of some famous nations mentioned on the inscriptions are lacking, from which it may be concluded that they did not rise to prominence till a later date. Saba (Sheba) itself, which was in later times the chief name, has in Gen. x. 28 a subordinate place; it was perhaps only a collective name for the companies of merchants who conducted the SouthArabian export trade (the root saba in the inscriptions meaning to make a trading journey), and in that case would be of such late origin as to hold one of the last places in a list that has genealogical form. Two other accounts in Genesis, originally independent, give supplementary information drawn from the Sabaean colonies, the stations and factories established to facilitate trade through the desert. The inscriptions of Al-Ola published by D. H. Muller show that there were Minaean colonies in North Arabia. Other South Arabs, and especially the Sabaeans, doubtless also planted settlers on the northern trade routes, who in process of time united into one community with their North-Arab kinsmen and neighbors. Thus we can understand how in Gen. xxv. 2-3 Sheba and Dedan appear among the NorthArab sons of Keturah. Again, the Sabaeans had colonies in Africa and there mingled with the black Africans; and so in Gen. x. 7 Sheba and Dedan, the sons of Raamah (Raghma), appear in the genealogy of the Cushites. With the Ethiopians Saba means men, a clear indication of their Sabaean descent.
The queen of Sheba who visited Solomon may have come with a caravan trading to Gaza, to see the great king whose ships plied on the Red Sea. The other biblical books do not mention the Sabaeans except incidentally, in allusion to their trade in incense and perfumes, gold and precious stones, ivory, ebony, and costly garments (Jer. Vi. 20~ Ezek. xxvii. 15, 20, 22 seq.; Isa. lx. 6; Job vi. 19). These passages attest the wealth and trading importance of Saba from the days of Solomon to those of Cyrus. When the prologue to Job speaks of plundering
It is believed that these Sabeans came from Southern Arabia in what now is Yemen. They were also called the Himyarites or the Yemenites. The Sabaeans were a Semitic people who, at an unknown date, entered Southern Arabia from the north. Sabaean civilization began as early as the 10th-12th century BC. The Sabaean rulers are mentioned in Assyrian annals of the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC, but Sabaean inscriptions are dated from the 6th century BC.
South Arabia was a collection of small kingdoms. The kingdom of Saba with its capital at Ma´rib (Mryb or Mrb according to indigenous inscriptions) was the most powerful, at times dominating all of the South Arabia. At Marib there exists an ancient dam, about 1,800 feet (550 m) long and pyramidal in cross section. The dam was of stone-and-masonry construction, with sluice gates to control the flow of water. It irrigated more than 4,000 acres (1,600 hectares) and supported a densely settled agricultural region, dependent on careful water conservation.
The Sabaeans were known as successful traders, they had a monopoly on "exotic” goods.The lived on two major two trade routes: one was the ocean-trading route between Africa and India. The harbors of the southwest were centers of commerce with these two continents and the luxury items, such as spices, imported from these countries. But the Sabaean region also lay at the southern terminus of land-based trade routes up and down the coast of the Arabian peninsula. Goods would travel down this land-route to be exported to Africa or India and goods from Africa and India would travel north on this land-route. This latter trade route had tremendous consequences for the Arabs in the north and the subsequent history of Islam. For all along this trade route grew major trading cities and the wealth of the south filtered north into these cities. It was in one such Arabian city, Mecca, that Islam would begin. With the domestication of the camel (1400 BC) large Sabaean caravans moved north along the edge of the desert. The trade route, which was protected by the kingdoms along the way, became famous as the "Gold and Incense Road". The Road began in the port of Al Mukulla and Bir Ali where ships would bring goods from distant India and the Orient. Frankincense is unique to Yemen since it is derived from the sap of a certain tree that grows only in Yemen. Frankincense was used as an offering to the gods and its rich perfumed smoke would rise like prayers to the heavens. It's aroma also made it valuable during cremations and it was often heaped on funeral pyres. Another Sabaean spice was Myrrh, an ingredient in fragrant oils and cosmetics. It was also used in preparing bodies for burial.
Among other luxury goods supplied by Sabaean merchants were spices, ebony, silk, Indian textile, rare woods, feathers, animal skins, and gold from East Africa. For centuries they controlled Bab el-Mandeb, the straits leading into the Red Sea. For much of its history, the area around Saba', Hadramawt, Qataban, and Ma'in was a center of incredible wealth legendary all throughout the Fertile Crescent and northern Africa. It was an area of exotic plants, spices and luxury items that gained high prices in commerce all throughout the Mediterranean and Asia. Its most lucrative export was frankincense, which in ancient times grew only in Hadramawt and in the Sabaean colony of Somalia in Africa.
They also established many colonies on the African shores, which may account for the African Sheba. The fact that Abyssinia (Ethiopia) was peopled from South Arabia has been proved linguistically. The difference between the Sabaean and Ethiopian languages implies that the original settlement was very early in history with many centuries of separation between the two. During these separations the Abyssinians were exposed to foreign influences. New Sabaean colonies did appear in some parts of the African coast as late as the 1st century BC.
Sabaean rulers of the early period employed a regnal style consisting of two names, a style that would be repeated over and over again. The rulers used the title mukarrib, thought to mean “unifier” when describing the royal self. Persons other than the rulers never used this title in their texts but referred to the rulers with their two names or simply as the “King of Marib”. In later history the title mukarrib fell out of use and the rulers referred to themselves, and were referred to by their subjects, as "king of Saba'."
The Sabaeans united the whole southern Arabia into a single political entity by the third century BC. By the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, they had expanded their empire to include Ethiopian lands across the Red Sea. At the end of the second century AD, a new power emerged in south Arabia : the Himyarites . They eventually conquered Saba and established their rule over all Yemen. Negligence caused the final destruction of the great Marib Dam in 570 AD. The Persians remained in power until the arrival of Islam in 628 AD
The religion of the Saba appears to be based on a national god called Almaqah (or Ilmuqah). Until recently Almaqah was considered to be a moon god, but the symbols of the bull's head and the vine motif that are associated with him are usually associated with a solar god.
More info and links:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/RON_SAC/SABAEANS.html
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701787/session2.html
https://www.nationalfilmnetwork.com/Store/DiscussionGuides/0-8026-0060-3.pdf
https://www.choicesvideo.net/guidebooks/WAV/Arabia.pdf
http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm
http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Strabo.html
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701787/arab_map.swf
http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/we12.htm
http://www.orientalia.org/info24316-Sabaeans.html
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/686729
http://www.dainst.org/index_3073_en.html
http://www.iraqandiraqis.com/Arab%20history.htm
http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/hist/hist.htm
http://www.yemenweb.com/info/_disc/0000002b.htm
Interesting stuff, and thanks for compiling an intro for those (myself included) who have not done much research on the Sabaeans. I was under the impression, though, that the region was rather splintered around the start time of the game, and the Sabaeans only consolidated control over most of the region a good bit later. I suppose you could justify them in similar way to how you might justify the Casse: the strongest of the tribes in a region, they traded widely, and eventually had some influence (the extent of which would seem pretty debatable) on other powers.
At least the Casse had important connections to Gaul and their descendants fought several wars with Rome. If you could find evidence the Sabaeans had any involvement in the wars between the Seleukids and Ptolemies, or supported Meroe against the Ptolemies, that would strengthen the case for them in my mind (which doesn't matter). As it is, they seem to be an economic hub and an interesting culture, but little else.
On the other hand, with a unique culture and a spot on the middle of several trade routes, an ambitious general could have a lot of fun...
PseRamesses
03-21-2006, 23:53
If you could find evidence the Sabaeans had any involvement in the wars between the Seleukids and Ptolemies, or supported Meroe against the Ptolemies, that would strengthen the case for them in my mind (which doesn't matter). As it is, they seem to be an economic hub and an interesting culture, but little else.
On the other hand, with a unique culture and a spot on the middle of several trade routes, an ambitious general could have a lot of fun...
Read links and do the search yourself and you´ll find all the proof you´ll need. Most cities on the red sea coast of Africa were Sabaean trading colonies. There are tremendous proofs of links between Axum, Kush, and several ancient Ethiopian kingdoms/ tribes that actually derived from semitic emigrations from Sheba.
Just because they weren´t an expansionist power doesn´t take them out of the equation. They we´re so tremendously rich and secluded that they really didn´t need to expand. But what if they had? With that wallet-size, technology and entrepeneurmanship there´s no telling what could have happened. Playing RTW isn´t about repeating history, it´s about changing it. The Sabaeans had the means and just lacked the interest of expansion.
But what if they had? With that wallet-size, technology and entrepeneurmanship there´s no telling what could have happened. Playing RTW isn´t about repeating history, it´s about changing it. The Sabaeans had the means and just lacked the interest of expansion.
Yeah, that was kinda my point at the end. Historically the Sabaeans probably didnt have the manpower to invade Egypt or something, or perhaps more importantly didnt want to mess up their sweet economic package. I agree that doesn't at all mean that you couldn't do a lot more in the game.
And I did read many of those links you posted. While they indicate a pretty strong trading power, they don't seem to indicate either the strong centralization of Sabaean power, or Sabaean participation in Hellenistic politics at the onset of the 3rd century. The sources that seem most credible (read: less nationalistic) seem to indicate a fair degree of internecine warfare between the various tribes of the area. If EB did do Sabaea, I would hope they start with a single region in that area, and have to expand against some moderately powerful rebels to get anywhere at all.
And perhaps I missed it, but did any of the sources talk about Sabaea around the start period? One mentions an ancient source talking about the different tribes, and another mentioned that in 215 or thereabouts the Sabaeans took over one of the other tribes. Was there more I missed from that time period?
oudysseos
03-22-2006, 07:44
The Sabaeans do sound interesting. I still like Syracuse for its political relevance at the time that EB starts, and the Attalids because that would complete the Macedonian Successor States, but in the end all I'm hoping is that whoever replaces the Yeuzhi isn't chosen 'to fill an empty space on the map'. Sometimes the map just has an empty space: that's life. If EB is trying to accurately model the world in 272 BC, then the criteria for factionhood should include historicity as a primary. That's what I've been trying to say in some other posts: maybe there just weren't 20 'factions' in 272, but only 19 or 18.
If we could fill the map with one 30-province faction, a few 10-province factions, a few 5-province factions, a whole bunch of 4, 3, and 2-province factions, and then every remaining province with a single-province faction, we would. Given the way RTW works, if we could show the many individual tribes/nations that were located in the various areas of the map, it would be infinitely better than having those spaces be just one amorphous blob of "rebels."
As it is, we have to make choices. "Filling spaces on the map" was never one of them, but going from an infinite number available, as we limit the number of factions we can have, the criteria for choosing them change. A new criteria has become "having people to work on a faction," because no matter how much we want "minor faction X" to be in the mod, if no one on the mod team is willing to do the research and work for "faction X," and "faction Y" had about the same impact from history's perspective, and has proponents willing to do the work, "faction Y" goes in and "faction X" is out.
This is one reason why we continually dance around getting rid of Armenia. We just can't find people who stick around to work on the faction. And when we get to a certain level of "faction-ness," many different people will have many different arguments for inclusion of these minor factions. The choice is really an arbitrary one, it isn't as if we're choosing between the impact of the Romans and the Caledonians.
PseRamesses
03-22-2006, 12:19
And perhaps I missed it, but did any of the sources talk about Sabaea around the start period? One mentions an ancient source talking about the different tribes, and another mentioned that in 215 or thereabouts the Sabaeans took over one of the other tribes. Was there more I missed from that time period?
They united all southern tribes/ city states by the third century bc. This time out of political necessaty since the other tribes where jockeying for power and domination. Proteced by the wast and unhabitable expanses of the arabian desert to the north, the trecherous seas of Red Sea and Indian Ocean with few safe ports there was really ione way into Sheba. "The spice and gold route" along the west coast towards Sinai and "Israel" they were totally protected. But when they united the souther Arabian peninsula the threat came from within and they acted firmly to resolve the situation.
Trading posts and colonies along the whole african Red Sea coast and Africas Horn proves their domination of this area at the timeframe of the game. This proves a strong unified administrative and political power and a strong military precense too. The Nubian (Sudan), Ethiopian and Somalian tribes was NOT to be trifled with. Strong powers/ kingdoms have been popping up here since before 3000bc.
PseRamesses
03-22-2006, 12:27
If we could fill the map with one 30-province faction, a few 10-province factions, a few 5-province factions, a whole bunch of 4, 3, and 2-province factions, and then every remaining province with a single-province faction, we would. Given the way RTW works, if we could show the many individual tribes/nations that were located in the various areas of the map, it would be infinitely better than having those spaces be just one amorphous blob of "rebels."
So how about the RTR-concept of "counter factions" that they are planning for their BI-port?
As it is, we have to make choices. "Filling spaces on the map" was never one of them, but going from an infinite number available, as we limit the number of factions we can have, the criteria for choosing them change. A new criteria has become "having people to work on a faction," because no matter how much we want "minor faction X" to be in the mod, if no one on the mod team is willing to do the research and work for "faction X," and "faction Y" had about the same impact from history's perspective, and has proponents willing to do the work, "faction Y" goes in and "faction X" is out.
Filling spaces does serve a vital function in a strat-game: it prevents the AI´s expansion into unhistorical places. But should probaly be placed at the lowest end on the "faction-criteria" scale.
You really don´t need a "team" for a faction, just a coordinator. The rest could be handled by the masses through the boards. Look at the help you guys got when you called for help with the Armenians!
QwertyMIDX
03-22-2006, 16:26
To be fair by beginning of the 3rd century BC Saba's rule over Southern Arabia and the Ethiopian coast was pretty well shattered. The rise of the other Southern Arabian Kingdoms to the status of rival powers had shaken up the political landscape quite seriously. Saba period of complete domiance would have passed before EB starts (it was likely in the 5th century) but they do have something of a Renaissance and end up the dominate power again until the Himyarites appear.
PseRamesses
03-22-2006, 17:14
To be fair by beginning of the 3rd century BC Saba's rule over Southern Arabia and the Ethiopian coast was pretty well shattered. The rise of the other Southern Arabian Kingdoms to the status of rival powers had shaken up the political landscape quite seriously. Saba period of complete domiance would have passed before EB starts (it was likely in the 5th century) but they do have something of a Renaissance and end up the dominate power again until the Himyarites appear.
Hmm, interesting. Could you provide some links or litterature tips so I can verify this since the sources I´ve found doesn´t quite agree with your statement. Most thankful for any sources m8.
What I do find odd is the lack of sources concerning regents, units, conquests in this region. Almost all evidence comes from traveller reports or historians. Interesting expanded digs at Ma´rib (amongst other places in Yemen) reveals more and more about this illusive people. Do you have any sources regarding this too Qwerty?
So how about the RTR-concept of "counter factions" that they are planning for their BI-port?I don't know what this is.
QwertyMIDX
03-22-2006, 19:31
Hmm, interesting. Could you provide some links or litterature tips so I can verify this since the sources I´ve found doesn´t quite agree with your statement. Most thankful for any sources m8.
What I do find odd is the lack of sources concerning regents, units, conquests in this region. Almost all evidence comes from traveller reports or historians. Interesting expanded digs at Ma´rib (amongst other places in Yemen) reveals more and more about this illusive people. Do you have any sources regarding this too Qwerty?
Yeah, I'll send you a small biblography when I get home from school. Epigraphic evidence is really the key source for knowledge about Sabean political history, which is rather problematic as we thus lack a narrative history.
Malrubius
03-22-2006, 19:34
I think that's a proposed system where the player would run a batch file before starting his campaign and choose his faction at that time. This would install the files for a "variable" faction which varies depending on which faction the player is playing. You would have multiple versions of files, each containing stats, traits, scripts, etc, with a different one of these variable factions. The variable faction would be one that couldn't make the cut for the top 20, but it would provide a challenge or opposition to the player's faction.
Given the amount of work we put into researching each faction, and how religious we are about getting units right, and such, I can't see this as being feasible for us at all.
PseRamesses
03-22-2006, 21:47
Yeah, I'll send you a small biblography when I get home from school. Epigraphic evidence is really the key source for knowledge about Sabean political history, which is rather problematic as we thus lack a narrative history.
Outstanding m8, I´d love that! Thx a mill. Personal e-mail is pse@brevet.se
I don't know what this is.
Found here: http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/index.php?showtopic=16645
Quote:
"20. Counter faction (or Secondary faction)
This is THE main feature of 7.0 (after the map, the new scripts and BI). I'd think most people here havent heard of the "unlimited faction" concept. It's rather simple. You have 19 base factions (18 in our case), and batch files, that change the txt files, and turn the empty slot in whatever faction we please. Due to our campaign system in 7.0 (which is explained below), we will change this slot to a faction that had a significant impact in the base faction.
So if you play as:
Rome: You'll face the Roman rebels. The roman rebels represent the senate (more info on that once we can get a Roman preview up and running), slave rebelions, gladiatorial uprisings, or any kind of rebelion that may happen. It will also be used to simulate civil wars. They will obviously not be playable.
Aedui: You'll have to fight the Arveni for supremacy in Gaul. They are playable.
Suebii: You'll struggle with the Chatti. They are playable.
Getae: You'll face the Bastarnae. They are playable.
Ardiaei: You'll meet the Aetolian league. They are playable.
Epirus: You'll encounter Syracuse as an organized faction. They are playable.
Seleucids: You'll have to deal with the Seleucid pretenders. The pretenders will trigger a civil war. They will obviously not be playable.
Pontus: You'll face Pergamon. They are playable.
Armenia: You'll have to fight with Iberia (the caucasian one, not spain). They are playable.
Parthia: You'll have to deal with Persian Rebels. They represent the Persian nobility that used to rebel every once in while in the Parthian Empire. They'll trigger civil wars. They will obviously not be playable.
Bactria: You'll struggle with the Sakae. They are playable.
Ptolemaics: You'll encounter the Egyptian rebels. They will obviously not be playable.
Achaeans: You'll face the mighty of Sparta. They are playable.
Sarmatians: You'll meet the Roxolani. They are playable.
Tribus Massylii: You'll eventually see the rise of Mauretania. They are playable.
Celtiberi: You'll face the Lusitanians. They are playable.
Antigonids: You'll have to fight the Galatians (the ones that stayed in Greece). They are playable.
Carthage: You'll face the carthaginian rebels. They'll be used to represent a number of revolts, such as mercenary rebelions, libyan revolts, senate, civil wars. They will obviously not be playable.
Campaign System
This is just a small appendix to explain how campaigns will work in 7.0. Each of the 18 base factions will have it's own campaign. This makes it a lot easier for us to work, since we can add a lot more depth to each campaign, and also gives us the opportunity to add the secondary factions. Before starting the game you'll have to choose a .bat file, which corresponds to the faction you want to play as, and start the campaign. After that you'll only be able to play as the selected faction, and possibly it's secondary faction, depending on which faction you chose".
GodEmperorLeto
03-23-2006, 05:29
I know it probably sounds nuts, but I'd rather not have the whole "counter faction" system going on. All the major players are already represented for at least the first hundred years of game time (that means the first FOUR HUNDRED TURNS by the way, which is a long time). If the Sabaeans are added, I think it would be a greater bonus than the Ethiopians, another German faction, or the Numidians. But these "counter-factions" are honestly best represented through the collective indepedent/rebel/slave faction (Eleutheroi).
oudysseos
03-23-2006, 08:08
Given the amount of work we put into researching each faction, and how religious we are about getting units right, and such, I can't see this as being feasible for us at all.
So I don't suppose you guys would give us a hint? Have you decided who is gonna replace the yeuzhi, or is there a short list? Or are you going to keep them?
QwertyMIDX
03-23-2006, 08:34
Just to make this game more interesting, 1.5 allows us to use the senate slot, you can all guess 2 new factions, not 1.
Warlord 11
03-23-2006, 10:15
I, personally, would like to see the Sabaeans and Syracuse.
PseRamesses
03-23-2006, 11:31
Sabaeans and Numidians gets my vote.
Since I think you could justify the connection as long as Nicomedes was alive, I think Bithynia-Galatia could be really interesting, though you'd almost need to include the Attlids just to do that area justice. I doubt you would put two new factions in the same little area of the map.
I doubt it'll be a German faction since it seems there've been significant difficulties just rounding out the Sweboz, it wouldn't seem practical to add another on top of that. But beyond there it seems there are probably a dozen potentially viable factions...the Helvetii? Cyrenaica? Sabaea (maybe?)? Splitting the Iberians? Syracuse? etc
GodEmperorLeto
03-23-2006, 15:37
Just to make this game more interesting, 1.5 allows us to use the senate slot, you can all guess 2 new factions, not 1.
Sabaeans... and it'd be nice to keep the Yuezhi, but... well...
For the possible second new faction, I'd suggest either Numidians or Ethiopians. And I'd prefer Ethiopians to Numidians. They were pretty fractured during this time period. Ethiopians would make the game more interesting, and prevent the Ptolemies from ravaging the whole Nile valley, as the Sabaeans would help keep the Seleucids from sucking up all of Arabia.
Reverend Joe
03-23-2006, 16:31
Oh, for god's sake... the mystery faction is
Wait for it...
the Sioux.
:laugh4:
Are you happy now?
Spendios
03-23-2006, 17:56
This remember me the pre-beta time when all the fans were trying to know the new factions while EB members played with us...
PseRamesses
03-23-2006, 19:11
This remember me the pre-beta time when all the fans were trying to know the new factions while EB members played with us...
With the tremendous amount of work they´ve put into this excellent piece of mod they can have a laugh on me... they´ve earnt it Keep it up guys!
oudysseos
03-23-2006, 21:32
Let me rephrase: has the final decision been made or are y'all still debating it?
The final decision(s) has(have) been made.
PSYCHO V
03-24-2006, 05:19
Found here: http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/index.php?showtopic=16645
Quote:
"20. Counter faction (or Secondary faction)
This is THE main feature of 7.0 (after the map, the new scripts and BI). I'd think most people here havent heard of the "unlimited faction" concept. It's rather simple. You have 19 base factions (18 in our case), and batch files, that change the txt files, and turn the empty slot in whatever faction we please. Due to our campaign system in 7.0 (which is explained below), we will change this slot to a faction that had a significant impact in the base faction.
So if you play as:
Rome: You'll face the Roman rebels. The roman rebels represent the senate (more info on that once we can get a Roman preview up and running), slave rebelions, gladiatorial uprisings, or any kind of rebelion that may happen. It will also be used to simulate civil wars. They will obviously not be playable.
Aedui: You'll have to fight the Arveni for supremacy in Gaul. They are playable.
Suebii: You'll struggle with the Chatti. They are playable.
Getae: You'll face the Bastarnae. They are playable.
Ardiaei: You'll meet the Aetolian league. They are playable.
Epirus: You'll encounter Syracuse as an organized faction. They are playable.
Seleucids: You'll have to deal with the Seleucid pretenders. The pretenders will trigger a civil war. They will obviously not be playable.
Pontus: You'll face Pergamon. They are playable.
Armenia: You'll have to fight with Iberia (the caucasian one, not spain). They are playable.
Parthia: You'll have to deal with Persian Rebels. They represent the Persian nobility that used to rebel every once in while in the Parthian Empire. They'll trigger civil wars. They will obviously not be playable.
Bactria: You'll struggle with the Sakae. They are playable.
Ptolemaics: You'll encounter the Egyptian rebels. They will obviously not be playable.
Achaeans: You'll face the mighty of Sparta. They are playable.
Sarmatians: You'll meet the Roxolani. They are playable.
Tribus Massylii: You'll eventually see the rise of Mauretania. They are playable.
Celtiberi: You'll face the Lusitanians. They are playable.
Antigonids: You'll have to fight the Galatians (the ones that stayed in Greece). They are playable.
Carthage: You'll face the carthaginian rebels. They'll be used to represent a number of revolts, such as mercenary rebelions, libyan revolts, senate, civil wars. They will obviously not be playable.
Campaign System
This is just a small appendix to explain how campaigns will work in 7.0. Each of the 18 base factions will have it's own campaign. This makes it a lot easier for us to work, since we can add a lot more depth to each campaign, and also gives us the opportunity to add the secondary factions. Before starting the game you'll have to choose a .bat file, which corresponds to the faction you want to play as, and start the campaign. After that you'll only be able to play as the selected faction, and possibly it's secondary faction, depending on which faction you chose".
Whilst I admire the RTR team for undertaking such an ambitious task, I don't really believe it a good thing for EB. Even if it could be done, EB has so much historical data, faction specific buildings, models, etc etc per faction that trying to have this level of detail for every one of the aforementioned / nth proposed factions would take so long you'd never actually see the mod. It's a case of quality over quantity. EB explicitly aims for quality, something I hope the community will be able to fully appreciate once we get the next version sorted out. ~;)
my2bob
And I must say I'm looking forward to fully appreciating it!
("it" being both the quality and the next version of the mod itself)
and if y'all have figured out the replacement faction(s), there's no point in bothering with an apologia for bithynia-galatia, etc. Off to do real work then!
oudysseos
03-24-2006, 09:16
The final decision(s) has(have) been made.
You just love teasing, don't you.
PseRamesses
03-24-2006, 10:58
The final decision(s) has(have) been made.
My good Sir. Do tell so we can move on and hound you guys with the next obvious question: when will they be included?:laugh4:
Reverend Joe
03-24-2006, 18:31
When we need them to be. ~;)
:laugh4: I love messing with your heads.
My good Sir. Do tell so we can move on and hound you guys with the next obvious question: when will they be included?:laugh4:Possibly when the new version is ready.
oudysseos
03-24-2006, 20:56
I have a vision... Khelvan in thigh-high PVC boots and a corset, smoking a cigar and cracking a whip: "Grovel, you swine!! You know you like it!!"
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.