Faction List for EB2?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Why? To fill the void of the baltic area?

In that case, better the Lugii, they would be on a good position to expand virtually on every direction, not to mention the differences in culture.
Another celt-like faction? We already have Casse, Aedui, Averni. We possibly get Goidils and Belgae. And some think the Boii... So I think another germanic tribe would be very appropiate.:yes: :yes: :yes: I second SaFe for the Goths or Bastarnae, or Cheruski. I think it would be very nice to have to germanic factions rival for hegemony in Germania, as the AA-Celts do in Gaul.

[SaFe]

Another celt-like faction? We already have Casse, Aedui, Averni. We possibly get Goidils and Belgae. And some think the Boii... So I think another germanic tribe would be very appropiate.:yes: :yes: :yes: I second SaFe for the Goths or Bastarnae, or Cheruski. I think it would be very nice to have to germanic factions rival for hegemony in Germania, as the AA-Celts do in Gaul.


I'm totally against the Bastarnae. They changed their germanic lifestyle much too early to be called germanic for the EB-timeframe.
Concerning the Heruskoz (Cherusci) - as well as the Hattoz (Chatti) they were rather similar to the Sweboz (Suebi) to gain a faction slot for themselves.
If we want a slightly other germanic faction we should go with the Gutanoz (Gothi) or perhaps the Kimbroz (Cimbri).

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I'm totally against the Bastarnae. They changed their germanic lifestyle much too early to be called germanic for the EB-timeframe.
Concerning the Heruskoz (Cherusci) - as well as the Hattoz (Chatti) they were rather similar to the Sweboz (Suebi) to gain a faction slot for themselves.
If we want a slightly other germanic faction we should go with the Gutanoz (Gothi) or perhaps the Kimbroz (Cimbri).
OK. The main reason I proposed the Bastarnae was that they live in an eleutheroi-only area. Perhaps the neighboring Scyths were a better alternative (I know they aren't germanic).

As for the Cherusci, I saw they inhabited roughly the area where I live.~:)

As for me, anything germanic would be fine. And aren't the Aedui and Averni also very similar, or am I wrong?

P.S.: Wo lebten eigentlich die Vangionen? Und bedeutet "manniskon barnan" so viel wie "das Kind im Manne"? Das würde mich mal interessieren.~:)

[Foot]

2)Qin (or Han) Chinese Dynasty (hopefully the East will be included) (Why: because this period in particular is when massive trade came out of China and they began expanding westward into the Tarim Basin and chasing out/killing the Yeuzhi/Tocharians)
3)Mauryan Indian Dynasty (Why: They had strong ties with the Selucids, including an alliance and promotion of intermarriage)
4)Yeuzhi/Tocharians (Why: Were and Indo-European people (with a culture and language very simmilar to the Celts) that inhabited the first regions that the Silk Road came into out of China, and were chased out of their region into Bactrea by the Chinese)


We won't be expanding our map. MTW2 only allows 198 provinces, compared to RTWs 199 (so we even have to lose one). Both the Chinese and the Indians are far out of our designated area.

The Yeuzhi were dropped because they do not appear at the beginning of our game, in 272, they appear much later. We have already decided against emerging factions, we want all our factions to be fully playable.

Foot

[Redmeth]

We have already decided against emerging factions, we want all our factions to be fully playable.

Foot
You guys are an avatar of ambition and perseverence thank you for doing so much in order to give people an accurate portray of history and all its great factions.
Regarding the time needed for EB2 do you have some sort of system for improving the textures on existing units and quicken their transition in EB2?
Or most of the work will have to start from scratch?

[SaFe]

OK. The main reason I proposed the Bastarnae was that they live in an eleutheroi-only area. Perhaps the neighboring Scyths were a better alternative (I know they aren't germanic).

As for the Cherusci, I saw they inhabited roughly the area where I live.~:)

As for me, anything germanic would be fine. And aren't the Aedui and Averni also very similar, or am I wrong?

P.S.: Wo lebten eigentlich die Vangionen? Und bedeutet "manniskon barnan" so viel wie "das Kind im Manne"? Das würde mich mal interessieren.~:)


manniskon barnan bedeutet Menschenkind:-)
Die Vangionen waren ein ziemlich kleiner und eher unbedeutender Stamm, die in etwa in der heutigen Kurpfalz/Nordbaden lebten - meine Heimat also.

Concerning the Cherusci in comparison to the Aedui and Averni you are correct, but in the case the Belgae are a playbale faction in EB2, i think the area there becomes to crowded.
I still think the Gu(o)tanoz are the best choice, slightly behind the Kimbroz(Cimbri)

[Foot]

You guys are an avatar of ambition and perseverence thank you for doing so much in order to give people an accurate portray of history and all its great factions.
Regarding the time needed for EB2 do you have some sort of system for improving the textures on existing units and quicken their transition in EB2?
Or most of the work will have to start from scratch?

We'll probably start by just converting all our current models into MTW2 models without any changes. This will allow us to work on the game and playtest the results properly. Over time we will slowly replace the old non-MTW2 models (low detail etc) that we converted directly from our RTW models, into full, working MTW2 models with 1024 textures etc.

Foot

[Casuir]

We won't be expanding our map. MTW2 only allows 198 provinces, compared to RTWs 199 (so we even have to lose one). Both the Chinese and the Indians are far out of our designated area.


I donyt know where you got this region limit from but its wrong, the limit is the exact same as rtw.

[LorDBulA]

Yea its the same but You have 2 sea regions while in RTW You had only 1.
So You can have one less land region. At least this is what guys editing M2TW are saying.
But its like nothing compared to other options that where added.

[Casuir]

You can still have 199 with just 1 sea region. The hardcoded limits in the wiki forum was never updated to reflect that discovery, it has been now.

[Sarcasm]

And there are enough celtic factions for sure belonging in EB2
Aedui, Averni, Celt-Iberians, Galatians, Casse, Goidilics, etc...

Celtiberians aren't Celts and neither are the Goidilis. They speak a form of celtic and have celtic elements in them but they're not full-blown celts. A few of your Germans could be said to have almost the same ammount of Celtic influence. :inquisitive:

[I Am Herenow]

You can still have 199 with just 1 sea region. The hardcoded limits in the wiki forum was never updated to reflect that discovery, it has been now.

What's a sea region? Like Sardinia or something? :S

[Krusader]

Sea Region is the ocean. The second sea region in M2TW is probably the deep waters regular ships cant sail on.

As for factions...well we try to choose primarily factions with historical merit. But we can always choose some factions who either sat in their forests and didn't do much when it came to military expansion, or had a different skin color than the rest. Maybe even include a faction which would only be in one province, but who happens to worship a god that is worshiped today.

[I Am Herenow]

Oh right, so is the reason you can't sail from Spain straight north to Britain - but must follow the French coastline - because that area of water isn't technically part of the map? :S

Oh, one more thing: how come I can't seem to get my Diplomats to the settlement in the Sahara (Terhazza)? I looked on the map on the website, and it's right in the corner, but whenever my Diplomats get close, the green "explorable" area just stops suddenly.

Is it meant to be an area you can never conquer, or do I need to have captured more of Africa or what? :S

Thanks! :D

[Ludens]

Terhazza is indeed not meant to be conquered.

[I Am Herenow]

Terhazza is indeed not meant to be conquered.

Is this because it was not easy to conquer historically or because it's a dumping ground for markers and stuff (in a bug report I posted about a wierd building in Tuat, bovi said it was a marker which he thought was in Terhazza)?

Also, is Terhazza where you put the Eleutheroi faction leader and faction heir? Seeing as I've only ever seen family members. Or are there only family members in the Eleutheroi, meaning there's no need to hide a nonsensical faction leader?

[SaFe]

Celtiberians aren't Celts and neither are the Goidilis. They speak a form of celtic and have celtic elements in them but they're not full-blown celts. A few of your Germans could be said to have almost the same ammount of Celtic influence. :inquisitive:

I'm not sure what you want to tell me here by calling them my germans, but if you read my text properly you'll notice i said the mentioned celtic factions belong in EB2.
We can dispute about Goidilis about beeing celtic though.

[Casuir]

Sea Region is the ocean. The second sea region in M2TW is probably the deep waters regular ships cant sail on.

Theres actually 4 sea regions in mtw2, the atlantic/med, red sea, caspian and various lakes. Having just one works though. Not sure what allows the ships to sail on the deep ocean, possibly the ship heavy/light warship tag.

[LorDBulA]

Casuir I have a question for You. Does lakes in M2TW still has to be on see level or can You make proper lakes now?

[Casuir]

No, the map works basically the same as rome, sea level is a constant. It may be possible to juryrig something on the campaign map with some trickery using climates and forest models or something, battlemaps would be a problem though.

[Ludens]

Is this because it was not easy to conquer historically or because it's a dumping ground for markers and stuff (in a bug report I posted about a wierd building in Tuat, bovi said it was a marker which he thought was in Terhazza)?
Probably both.

[CaesarAugustus]

We won't be expanding our map. MTW2 only allows 198 provinces, compared to RTWs 199 (so we even have to lose one). Both the Chinese and the Indians are far out of our designated area.

Not Gandhara, which was one of the four Mauryan satrapies that made up the Mauryan empire.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

manniskon barnan bedeutet Menschenkind:-)
Die Vangionen waren ein ziemlich kleiner und eher unbedeutender Stamm, die in etwa in der heutigen Kurpfalz/Nordbaden lebten - meine Heimat also.
Ich hatte mal gehört, dass barn schwedisch für Kind ist.~;)

[kalkwerk]

Skandinavisch

[Foot]

Not Gandhara, which was one of the four Mauryan satrapies that made up the Mauryan empire.

I knew someone would pick me up on that. Yes we do have three indian provinces on the EB map, but it is debatable whether it would be worth even putting Gandhara in. Of course there are some plus-sides, such as they would finally rebel to someone proper, but there may be some other more deserving factions as we would not be able to simulate Gandhara's relationship to the Mauryan empire. This is the kind of stuff us EBers have to argue over, it is very taxing.

Foot

[Gaelic Rebel]

I really hope there's a Goidilic faction!

[Alexander777]

After reviewing the EB map, here are my top ten picks for new EB factions. I primarily picked these because I felt they would bring more balance to the game. Please feel free to comment on what specific factions would fit into these areas. I am not as big a history buff as some (but I would like to be :book: ).

1. Baltic Faction: The area north of the Getai and east of the Sweboz is one of the most barren of the game. I think something should be there. The most likely faction would be the Aestii, a tribe in northern Poland whom thrived off the amber trade). The Lugii are also a possibility.

2. Southern/Eastern Germanian Faction: The Sweboz need way more competition (I've seen too many gigantic German Empires that have not encountered any other factions). The Belgae will take care of the North, so someone tell me of a good southern or southeastern Germanian Tribe!

3. Belgae: This faction would provide an interesting opponent for both the Aedui and the Sweboz.

4. Another Briton Faction (Goidilic all the way)! : The Casse need an opponent, and the Goidilic already have awesome factional units and history.
'Nuff said.

5. Celtiberians: An eastern Iberian (not Georgia) faction would liven up Iberia and also make it interesting for the Arveni. Plus the Celtiberians were supposedly famous warriors, so there would probably be interesting faction units.

6. Numidia: Carthage needs competition in Africa, and the Numidians are the ones to give it to them.

7. Syracuse: This faction would really make Sicily interesting. My only concern is that I wouldn't want it to be a carbon copy of the Koinon Hellnon. Anyone know of any unique Syracuse soldiers?

8. Pergamom/Galatia: One of these two faction should exist to fill the gap in western Asia Minor. They're both cool, but I'm not sure which one would win out....

9. India: I don't care if its the Indo-Greeks or a Marudyan satrapy, Baktria should not be able to walk into India without opposition!

10. Kyrene...or Scythia...: I wish both of these factions could exist, but theres not enough room. Kyrene would help keep Ptolmaioi attention in Africa and it would be cool to see a steppe war between Scythia and the Sarmatians (they would also help close the gap in Eastern Europe). Decisions...

Tell me what you guys think!!!!!!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I will bravely confirm that indeed, you have one of those correct. :laugh4:

[MiniMe]

I will bravely confirm that indeed, you have one of those correct. :laugh4:
Would you be so kind to confirm that Alexander777 was correct in his assumptions only once? ;-)

[blitzkrieg80]

Woot! somebody mentioned the Aestii- interesting people. They were mentioned from Tacitus into Viking times. That amber trade is serious business. :dizzy2: ignore me im crazy...

[edyzmedieval]

He talked of Massalia or Massilia, which is today known as Marseille. And Marseille is situated in southern France, although some people might say it's a mauretanian town nowadays... ~;) :laugh4:

This is what happens when you have one of the first LCD's in the world... Really, I typed that from a very bad LCD, and the characters are weird.

Yes, Massalia is in France. Might be an option, but AFAIK, I don't know if they were such a big kingdom at the start of EB. Correct me if I am wrong. :book:



Would you be so kind to confirm that Alexander777 was correct in his assumptions only once? ;-)


No. :grin:
"Occultus". Understand a bunch of tired Hetairoi. :sweatdrop:

Scythia wasn't as powerful in those times, as the Sauromatae closely took their place.

Siracuse - well, they have access to the Sicilians mercs, and they will also have mercenary Romani troops, just in the north.

[Laundreu]

Well, I don't think it could be the Goidils, as to properly show Ireland during the time you'd probably want to split the island up into four provinces, instead of the current two. Which is too bad; they'd get some reforms of their own, possibly triggered by conquest of the Iberian north and western coasts - keep in mind, South Ireland, parts of what would be Wales and Cornwall, Armorica, and parts of North and West Iberia were all very closely related culturally and probably politically. A full-grown Goidelic Empire would be a coastal, naval one - which would also be fascinating.

[roxanne]

Here are my thoughts about necessary factions for EB2

sorry i am just fishing the facts in my unreliabe brain ;-)


attalids/pergamon was a remarkable kingdom, gained independence from the seleucid and was allied to rome (which inherit the kingdom later on)... they had the second biggest library in the 'antique'

galatia was always a problem in central minor asia (the attalids were able to defeat them) also there is the letter to the galatian by paulus!

bythnia a small but wealthy kingdom north to the attalids and west to pontus

etruscan rome's opponent to the north (though i am not sure if they fit into the time period given)

illyria one of those tribe who where able to launch raids to the italian penisuela and 'forced' rome to conquer the adrian coast

syracuse just to mighty to be left out, also i like to recall that they called for roman help against carthage?

an iberian faction to give rome a harder time in north/east iberia which was a wealthy area but hard to control

for the sake of gameplay:


faction east to sweboz, north of getai, west to sauromatae
numidia - opponent to carthage in africa
indian faction
tracia - like in vanilla
split sparta and athene
crete - the island was a basis for piracy, rome put an end to that by conquering crete
cyrene


further factions in great briton or the belgae do not make sense the focus of the time period at hand is alexanders empire and the mediterraen sea

[Foot]

further factions in great briton or the belgae do not make sense the focus of the time period at hand is alexanders empire and the mediterraen sea

only for those from that part of the world. Obviously the majority of literature is on this massive event, but it doesn't mean that there were not other equally important events going on elsewhere. We do not look at the world from a Roman or hellenic view of the world, rather we try to identify major players in the different areas of the world, and we view all areas equally. The mediterranean is no more important for the people who lived there than the far distant steppe of the wilds of northern britain.

Foot

[Laundreu]

further factions in great briton or the belgae do not make sense the focus of the time period at hand is alexanders empire and the mediterraen sea

Incorrect, sir; the focus of the writers of the time was primarily on the Hellenistic and Mediterranean world, yes...because the writers were invariably Hellenic or Roman writers. I wonder what biases will be inherent in their works~?

[roxanne]

sure roman and hellenic writers will focus on their part of the world (like the travel guide to the seven wonders)... but if you examine our roots it is the greek mythology, the bible and roman law and these are origined in the mediterrean... also the map is restricted to the known area to greek and roman historians... nonetheless as eb allows for a different version of history to be written, potential tribes capable of altering the outcome of events should be included... i do think they are mostly located around the mediterrean and not to be found in 'ireland' (no offence intended)... the 'germans', a bunch of tribes which could be abstracted by one, same to briton, two tribes in the steppe should be fine, celtic civs... but don't get me wrong i believe whatever factions will be in eb2 will be there for a good reason where-ever they are located...

thanks for a great game

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It's my personal opinion that with seven new factions we complete the list of all factions that truly fit in our designs for EB1. The other three look to me to be gravy. There is a point where you get all of the ones that *must* be included given our parameters and then you have maybe 10-15 more that really are about equal. We still haven't decided on half of them, but we're close to having seven picked and finalized. I'm excited about doing some work on the new factions, and did a little family tree stuff on one of them today. Can't wait for those guys to get the map finalized and ported as the first step.

[kalkwerk]

Actually I have no problem with Syracuse, Pergamon, Numidia and so on being rebels from the start out. What Id like to see would be emerging factions: Numidia could be that, appearing under certain circumstances, roman rebels, cimbri, perhaps pergamon, chatti and so on.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We won't have emerging ones. Sorry.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

EB wants to have all factions playable, so that players can fully enjoy all factions. Since immerging factions aren't playable, they aren't really considered.

[Gaelic Rebel]

If a Goidilic faction is included in EB2 what types of new units would be created for the Goidils to supplement the current ones? Hard to say at this point in time?

[Laundreu]

If a Goidilic faction is included in EB2 what types of new units would be created for the Goidils to supplement the current ones? Hard to say at this point in time?

At the time of EB's start date - 272 BCE - there aren't any Goidils, in fact. They, as far as I'm aware, are thought to have immigrated to the island from Iberia sometime in the 2nd or 1st century BCE, fleeing Roman persecution and headed for the land farthest from Rome that they were culturally associated with - Ireland.

The fact that there was evidence of technological shifts and more large-scale expressions of power at the time - the Corlea Road, the Black Pig's Dike, the Dun of Drumsna, and other examples of contemporary monumental architecture - took place from the middle to the end of the 2nd century BCE (~150 BCE to ~100 BCE) implies some sort of change taking place on the island. Given how enigmatic ancient Irish history is, however, I hesitate to say anything for certain.

I'd really appreciate an actual expert on this bunch to show up, of course. Who is the Briton faction coordinator for EB, and could I beg for elucidation from him/her?

[Anthony]

When Goidils emerged exactly isn't fully known. It could have been in the early 3rd century BC at earliest, but even if they were, they would reform steadily, and would start with many pre-Gaelic units assuming we use them as a faction. Goidilic-style objects are found early, but their numbers are confusing, and imply a matter of confusion. We're discussing currently how to deal with them currently. I kind of teeter back and forth, thinking in historical terms, and how it'll affect gameplay and all. It is clear, regardless, they'd have reforms; in the case of starting as Britons, they'd reform rather like Romans, axing near the entire old unit selection and gaining access to a new set of units. In the case of starting under the influence of Gaels, it'd likely be a bit more confusing; a mixture of Gadels and 'Britons', which reforms steadily into more recognizable Gaels. There are other factors to the technology improvements in the 2nd century (increased trade being a big one), but one of them is most likely a vast emergence of Gaelic power, who were technologically superior to the pre-Gaelic inhabitants; it may just represent a shift of culture though in lower classes as well as the warrior body, which would hold most of the sheer political power. How slow or fast the change happened though is a matter of debate. In either event though, Gaels would need be present earlier to disseminate into the society (given they didn't start as Gaels, they were seperate tribes of Brythonic Irish and immigrant Iberian Irish tribes, and they intermingled their cultures, forming Gaels). Either way, should see something interesting once it's worked out. Essentially though, even if they started 'Goidilic', they'd not be, just Gadelic/proto-Gael aristocracy, with Brythonic units, and only two reforms, representing the shift to the Goidilic society sometime in the 2nd century BC, and then late iron age Gaels in the late 2nd century/early 1st century BC. If they start Brythonic, there'd be an additional reform to the Gadelic aristocracy format, so there'd be more reforms, with a shorter time between them (Gadel-aristocracy emerging around the late 3rd/early 2nd century, then Goidilic society in the mid-2nd century, then the late Gaelic emergence in the 1st century). The emergence of the outside tribes in Ireland that helped create Gaels is probably not a single event, but there were probably more coming from Iberia later, so there'd be a number of changes overtime either way.

[Dumbass]

I think it would make much more sense to have the massalyie faction instead of numidians, because the numidians are one little unwalled town, right next to Carthage, ready to get blitzed and destroyed almost straight away, whereas the massalyie are at the other end of the coast, with more stronger towns and they have expansion opportunities into Spain. Also the Massalyie were at war with Carthage and helped the romans, which could create a much more interesting situation.

[Laundreu]

Big Block O' Text

That's pretty interesting. Would the proto-Goidils, especially early on, be using Halstatt equipment instead of La Tene? Like I mentioned before, as I'm aware the La Tene technological package only made a major appearance in Ireland circa 150-100 BCE.

[Anthony]

Yes. They'd be more into Hallstatt-style axes, shortswords, helmets, etc. Virtually no mail to speak of, instead wearing scale armor as their upmost type of armor, or a girdle of vertical metal strips. Longswords only used by the most wealthy. Mind, Goidils used, largely, a type of shortsword near identical to the gladius most of the time (effectively more of a big dagger than a sword) anyway, but there were also long, broad-bladed swords, and La Tene longswords appear eventually, and with them, we find some exceptionally long blades now and again with long tangs, implying two-handed weapons (which would make sense, Irish druids and some champions are described as having used swords used in both hands, though most of them probably weren't so long, but given the nature of such an item, it'd most likely be a custom piece for the user, not some cheap 'sword' churned out for poor folks). Doing them would be a kind of complex operation either way.

[Laundreu]

Yes. They'd be more into Hallstatt-style axes, shortswords, helmets, etc. Virtually no mail to speak of, instead wearing scale armor as their upmost type of armor, or a girdle of vertical metal strips. Longswords only used by the most wealthy. Mind, Goidils used, largely, a type of shortsword near identical to the gladius most of the time (effectively more of a big dagger than a sword) anyway, but there were also long, broad-bladed swords, and La Tene longswords appear eventually, and with them, we find some exceptionally long blades now and again with long tangs, implying two-handed weapons (which would make sense, Irish druids and some champions are described as having used swords used in both hands, though most of them probably weren't so long, but given the nature of such an item, it'd most likely be a custom piece for the user, not some cheap 'sword' churned out for poor folks). Doing them would be a kind of complex operation either way.

I'm almost in favor of the Goidils now, just because their military sounds like an awesome thing.

[Anthony]

A lot of folks misconcieve their similarities to Gauls and Britons. They were quite unique for their place in the world, and they'd certainly be a different view of the world. They're also advantageous in that we know a surprising amount about how their armies and such organized, the types of soldiers they had, etc., as they don't really change much based on archaeology, between when they become definably Gaels at all strata of society (not just an aristocracy), and when they become Christians and start writing extensively. The next big change for them would be the viking invasions, so we get a lengthy period of evidence from which we detail what they carried, how they fought, what soldiers ranked where in society, how they arrayed their armies, the difference between clan/tribal 'wars' and actual fullscale wars (which is a distinct difference in how battles and such were performed). A lot of the agitating nature of doing many factions is we don't really know much about how they viewed fighting, and we just have to make some assumptions based on as logical an assessment as we can make, and look at similar or related people and try and draw on them a bit for an understanding of how X faction would operate. We wouldn't have that issue so much with an early Gaelic people, because we know so much more about them, as in, how they viewed things and operated, then we do about people like the Gauls.

[Alexander777]

I am extremely happy to know that my list got some debate going and even got noticed by the EB celebrity gossip reporter!:2thumbsup: I am also glad that I actually got one of the factions right (although I hope that by the time EB1 roles around at least two of those factions will be in it). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the one I guessed correctly is the Belgae (since it says in the eleutheroi page that they were considered before..at least I think it said that). I'm glad there seems to be support for a Goidilic faction too. I think it would be neat to have them start out with more Briton like units, then have a reform and be able to get the hammer of doom guys and the Irish Vasci Shock Infantry :whip: Also, I do agree that the town of Massylia would be in a better position for a western African faction, but is there enough historical evidence to give it factional units?? :help:

[Ignoramus]

An EB membership! An EB membership! My kingdom for an EB membership!

I can't wait to see what those new factions are.

[Caveira]

This is what I suggest:

Celtiberians: both they and the lusotannans should be easilly killed any of the other two factions but ultamatly carthage should conquer most of iberia and both these factions. When that happens, another faction should apeear.

Barca family: and they should be FRACKING POWERFULL and if possible have some kind of script that will make it steamroll to Rome.

Koinon Hellenon should be seperated into factions, one led by sparte and another by athens I think.

Asia Minor needs another faction, Pergamon?

Roman rebels

Seleukid rebels.

4 more random barbarian factions.

[Sarcasm]

This is what I suggest:

Celtiberians: both they and the lusotannans should be easilly killed any of the other two factions but ultamatly carthage should conquer most of iberia and both these factions. When that happens, another faction should apeear.

Barca family: and they should be FRACKING POWERFULL and if possible have some kind of script that will make it steamroll to Rome.

Hmmm....what? Easily killed?

The Phoenicians had been Iberia for at least 7 centuries before the game's period, and the Carthaginians in particular since probably the late 7th or 6th century BC...what makes you think they didn't try?

[Dumbass]

Also, I do agree that the town of Massylia would be in a better position for a western African faction, but is there enough historical evidence to give it factional units?? :help:

No not the town Massila, I mean the north african area of Massalyie, (maybe it's the dodgy spelling) they were like the numidians, but further down the coast from Carthage, in the area south of iberia.

[Alexander777]

Yes, I know that is the town you are talking about. I just wonder if there was enough historical evidence to provide them with their own special units.

[I Am Herenow]

Just a hunch, but will "Occultus (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1017311#post1017311)" be a faction?

[Geoffrey S]

It will be, but once it's announced it no longer will be. :beam:

[I Am Herenow]

It will be, but once it's announced it no longer will be. :beam:

Eh? :inquisitive:

What is that, a Catch-22? Are you saying I've just destroyed the Occultus faction, or that whoever announces its release will have destroyed it?

[Foot]

Just a hunch, but will "Occultus (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1017311#post1017311)" be a faction?

That faction will be in EB2. Yes.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I almost added Occultus to the FAQ, but didn't since I hadn't seen a question about it since all of EB1's faction's had been decided.
Hint: It's a Latin word...

[Redmeth]

I think this is some sort of inside joke, I believe Occultus is a name for factions yet to be announced or like in Khelvan's signature he was working on the unseen parts of the game.
Occultus meaning in latin: clandestine, hidden, secret.
So it's definetely not a playable faction as the team I believe wouldn't waste their time on a "secret" faction that would be like an easter egg in other games.
Am I close guys?

[I Am Herenow]

Oh right, so it's a generic term for factions still to come?

I thought it was strange the best Wikipedia had to offer on the subject was some heavy metal guy :beam: - and now Geoffery's post makes sense lol

[SouthernTrendKill]

I think keep all the great factions of EB for RTW, but add like ma by a Scandinavian tribe. Add a Hibernia one as well (Ireland). But also a Semitic tribe like of ancient Israel.

[Bootsiuv]

I would like to see the ancient vah-jynas....they were very prominent near the bush.

[Krusader]

I think keep all the great factions of EB for RTW, but add like ma by a Scandinavian tribe. Add a Hibernia one as well (Ireland). But also a Semitic tribe like of ancient Israel.

No, in discussion, No.

[gamegeek2]

My Wish List for factions:

- A Balto-Slavic/East Germanic culture, such as the Przeworsk or Zarubintsy (start in Neurije, Seliun Gentis etc.)

- Greek Skythai - a power until Mithridates made them vassals. They were prospering, even though they were driven out of many of their old lands. The Sauromatae would get a rival. They would start with Skythia, Taurike Chersonesos, and perhaps Maeotis and Mikra Skythia, but not Bosporion Tyrannensis (the Spartocid dynasty lasted until c.110 BC).

- Numidia, which i know is being worked on as I speak. They will probably start with Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Massaesili, Numidia, and Mauretania

- Ethiopia, the Semitic-African kingdom. The Semitic language was not due to Sabaean influence but native Semites, who lived in coexistence with Ethiopians. There is actually a fair bit of history of Ethiopia, it probably wouldn't bee too difficult.

- Bastarnoz, the influential and quite powerful Thracian-Germanic people. History might be somewhat limited, but Imperial Roman records as well as archeology would give good strong descriptions. They would also fill in a large empty space between the Sauromatae and the Sweboz and Getai.

- A Scandanavian culture, if at all possible, and a northern extension of the map, to accurately place Sapmi.

- A Hibernian tribe. The Prehistoric Irish music could be put to good use! And more Hibernian provinces - there are only 2, and it's a tiny island.

[Redmeth]

I would like to see the ancient vah-jynas....they were very prominent near the bush.

You know I heard that we all owe our lives to them, and a lot of time is still spent looking for them, I guess there might be some ancient ones around but their live descendants interest me most :holmes:

[Iasonis]

are you able to be romans in eb2? what is this ppl are saying of rebel roman faction?

[Bootsiuv]

You know I heard that we all owe our lives to them, and a lot of time is still spent looking for them, I guess there might be some ancient ones around but their live descendants interest me most :holmes:

:2thumbsup:

Well, maybe the ancients could teach us a thing or two.:knuddel:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

are you able to be romans in eb2? what is this ppl are saying of rebel roman faction?
Yes, EB2 covers the same time period as EB1.

[Rhyfelwyr]

East German Tribe - balance Sweboz in east
Remi - Belgic tribe, balance Sweboz in west, more resistance to Rome
Celtiberi - represent Celtic presence in Iberia
Goidili - unique culture, balance Casse in Britain
Roxolani - balance Steppes region, prompt Sarmatians into action
Numidians - provide challenge for Carthage if it chooses African route
Roman Rebel Faction - for civil wars
Pergamon - represent Greek presence in Asia Minor
Bosphoran Kingdom - very culturally diverse and interesting faction
Illyria - prevent immediate Greeco-Dacian wars, culturally inbetween

[Trax]

In order of personal importance:

1. Syracuse
2. Pergamon
3. Bosphoran Kingdom
4. Galatians
5. Celtiberians
6. Kingdom of Noricum

[SouthernTrendKill]

I still would like to see a northern faction put in... In like Sweden/Norway; Plus it would help balance the Germanic tribe to the south; and give them a fight so they don't have an easy fight with rebels for most of the game. Which was easy in the RTW version. And another questions.Who where the "vah-jynas* peoples*" I cant find a single thing about them any where.

[paullus]

oh sheesh. ^

I'm seeing some nice faction ideas, but we're not choosing factions based on the number of times people name them--we need good information, archaeological finds, mentions in ancient texts. If you really want to see a particular faction in EB2, that's what we'll need to see.

[I Am Herenow]

I don't quite understand why SouthernTrendKill's post upset you so much.

Also, this is kind-of off-topic, but as people keep talking about more factions for North Africa, what was going on historically in the rest of Africa in this time period? In other words, if you were to extend the EB map to include all of Africa, down to what is now South Africa - I'm speaking entirely theoretically here, of course - would there be any major civilizations you could include? Or was it very divided and fractured?

[Patriote]

I like Caledonian Rhyfelwyr's list of new factions, he gets my vote :laugh4:

[KARTLOS]

I don't quite understand why SouthernTrendKill's post upset you so much.

Also, this is kind-of off-topic, but as people keep talking about more factions for North Africa, what was going on historically in the rest of Africa in this time period? In other words, if you were to extend the EB map to include all of Africa, down to what is now South Africa - I'm speaking entirely theoretically here, of course - would there be any major civilizations you could include? Or was it very divided and fractured?

essentially very little!

[dezzerx]

And another questions.Who where the "vah-jynas* peoples*" I cant find a single thing about them any where.


:laugh4:

Pronounce the name of these "people" a few times and you will be enlightend. :clown:

[SouthernTrendKill]

Ok, good solid facts is what you want, then well here is a start... Well the were settlements in Sweden and Norway as far back as 7500 BC and slowly moved southward creating what we now call Germany. Many of the people there lived mostly like Germanic people; They farmers, hunters, and were woodsmen. There is a start for who they are and what life might have been like.
(and might be of some help with units) they were also apart of the battle ax culture.
For religion, I am not to sure as to what for there apparently is little found on Nordic culture. But what I have found is that they widely worshiped a female Mother god "Hertha" which was widely know in there areas. They mostly would be god related to Norse mythology; Thor, Woden etc... Germanic tribes also were closely related has to religion at the time.
I can find more, but thats just what I have for right now.

[SouthernTrendKill]

:laugh4:

Pronounce the name of these "people" a few times and you will be enlightend. :clown:

Fuck'n A, I feel dumb as shit! YES I AM NOW ENLIGHTENED!!!:laugh4:
I was sleepy when I was reading it last night.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Well, also to add on to the Scandinavian areas, geography, and life style: There was actually large amounts of iron mines. So there was plenty of metal working, and they did make weapons/tools etc ya ya ya. To add they were also a very war like people. When some of the people moved southward they usually fought who ever they would meet. And this game starting around 300BC don't give much time for Germanic tribes, because they weren't very powerful until later. And at that time, that was the mid point of the migration. So the Germanic peoples and Scandinavians to the north would be close on almost every thing. And like I said it might also give balance to the Sewboz in EB.

[Bootsiuv]

Who where the "vah-jynas* peoples*" I cant find a single thing about them any where.

Classic. :2thumbsup:

[SouthernTrendKill]

Damn Right It's A Classic!!! 2+2=5

[SouthernTrendKill]

Well, doing some research my self on these.. "vah-jyna people" I have discovered many of them came in contact with the mighty "Cockasias" in the late org-azim age, with them raping and plundering of them all... so sad...
I found most of my research very adult, :book: and quite interesting....:laugh4:

[Cang]

good thread, a lot of "if"s. :dizzy2: I was thinking, is it possible (now i might have stolen this from somewhere, i dont remember) if there was a faction that represented the "free kingdoms". Something apart from the rebel faction. Maybe even break it down into.. lets say free greek colonies, free african nations.. ect. I think breaking it down would be way too much but a free nations might make the "rebel" areas more hostile to players. Of course you can still have the rebel faction that comprises of brigands, pirates, rebel provinces, etc. Any thoughts?

[Krusader]

My Wish List for factions:

- A Balto-Slavic/East Germanic culture, such as the Przeworsk or Zarubintsy (start in Neurije, Seliun Gentis etc.)

- Greek Skythai - a power until Mithridates made them vassals. They were prospering, even though they were driven out of many of their old lands. The Sauromatae would get a rival. They would start with Skythia, Taurike Chersonesos, and perhaps Maeotis and Mikra Skythia, but not Bosporion Tyrannensis (the Spartocid dynasty lasted until c.110 BC).

- Numidia, which i know is being worked on as I speak. They will probably start with Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Massaesili, Numidia, and Mauretania

- Ethiopia, the Semitic-African kingdom. The Semitic language was not due to Sabaean influence but native Semites, who lived in coexistence with Ethiopians. There is actually a fair bit of history of Ethiopia, it probably wouldn't bee too difficult.

- Bastarnoz, the influential and quite powerful Thracian-Germanic people. History might be somewhat limited, but Imperial Roman records as well as archeology would give good strong descriptions. They would also fill in a large empty space between the Sauromatae and the Sweboz and Getai.

- A Scandanavian culture, if at all possible, and a northern extension of the map, to accurately place Sapmi.

- A Hibernian tribe. The Prehistoric Irish music could be put to good use! And more Hibernian provinces - there are only 2, and it's a tiny island.

Scythians were in decline, so probably no.

Numidia is a hot candidate though.

Ethiopia was sadly not a strong power at this time and there are other factions with a much better claim.

Bastarnoz...you know...the only thing certain about them is their name. Otherwise there is no solid proof of what ethnicity they were and how they were organized.

Scandinavian culture. Hardly likely. At this time period were there any strong tribes who tried to carve a kingdom on the expense of others? And as for there being abundant iron, Viking weapons were of iron, but not of as good quality as the blacksmiths didn't have the techniques to remove the impurities.

[Ludens]

Also, this is kind-of off-topic, but as people keep talking about more factions for North Africa, what was going on historically in the rest of Africa in this time period? In other words, if you were to extend the EB map to include all of Africa, down to what is now South Africa - I'm speaking entirely theoretically here, of course - would there be any major civilizations you could include? Or was it very divided and fractured?
I am by no means an expert, but in 272 B.C. northern Africa was dominated by the Carthaginians and the Ptolemies at this point. Minor players included various Numidian Kingdoms, the city of Cyrene and perhaps a Nubian kingdom or two. There also used to be a Libyan kingdom, but IIRC it was by now subjugated by the Carthaginians. South of Egypt there was also Kush/Meroe, but whether they were unified or not, they certainly weren't a strong nation.

I can't answer your question about southern Africa, but it's really doubtful it will be included anyway: M2:TW does not increase the province limit, and the Sahara is a good natural border for the map.

[bovi]

The... Battle axe... Culture? What's that? Are you sure you're not talking about this example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIc4VHxU7iM) of a rather younger subculture?

[Morte66]

Apart from the factions I've plugged (Syracuse and Helleno-Scythians), other people have suggested a few that caught my eye. I have a few questions about those, which might be interesting to discuss, mostly prompted by examining their Eleutheroi versions in EB1.

1. The Bastarnae
a) Where would you put them? In EB1 they're two provinces from the Getai homeland, and adjacent to Getai region 1. [I'm not suggesting this is wrong -- I wouldn't know -- just asking.]
b) In EB1 the military in that Basternae village is pretty much Sweboz with Dacian Shock Infantry renamed to "Basternae". Is that how you see them, or would there be more to it?

2. Pergamon
a) Historically/politically I like the idea of having a Greek city state in Asia Minor, like the KH but not a member. Was Pergamon actually like that, or was it more Persian?
b) Would their military be successor-style, or basically the same as the KH, or KH with a twist (serious cavalry, chariots, whatever)? I ask because I figure their important competition is the Seleucids, and EB already has "KH vs successor" or "successor vs successor" gameplay covered. If there were to be another KH style military inthe game, I'd rather it were Syracuse who face Rome/Carthage and would bring new gameplay to the mod.

3. Ireland
Would this be like the Casse or the Gallic factions, or something new?

[SouthernTrendKill]

Well, I mentioned the northern cultures as a faction to balance Germania "sweboz". Also this game starts at 274BC, or close to it; the tribes of the Rhine, and lands of Germany were no greater then the tribes of Scandinavia. If you are planning to add the Sweboz, then adding the Scandinavians would be no different. Plus the tribes of Scandinavia would be fighting wars south. Thats what they did. They would plunder and pillage, much like the later Norwegians/Saxons vikings. The Germanic tribes never were powerful until around 100BC or 9AD,I believe thats is when they finally got lots of contact with romans, so its of no great strength to add Scandinavian tribe to the roster.Plus the tribes surrounding Scandinavia made Germanic tribe .Also adding another Germanic tribe would be very bland...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Scythians were in decline, so probably no. [..]
Hmm, wasn't everybody except Rome in decline? A bit exaggerated, but I don't think this is an argument. Who says the Scythians could not have risen to power again?

Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...

Höhöhö, am I right???

[Morte66]

Hmm, wasn't everybody except Rome in decline? A bit exaggerated, but I don't think this is an argument. Who says the Scythians could not have risen to power again?

+1 :)

And they bring something new and unique to the game, instead of duplicating existing factions.


Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. [...] Höhöhö, am I right???

I wondered if the team would do that... Dunno if you're correct, but I would like to see it. And it create three unique factions: Spartans with their unique social/military seup, Athens as the stereotypical Greeks, Rhodes at sea. Having Athens and Sparta together forever always made my skin itch, even if it's correct at the start date.

[Patriote]

[QUOTE=Centurio Nixalsverdrus]Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...QUOTE]

Yeah but how would you manage to make them powerful enough to be "city-faction" knowing the AI they will end up fighting each other as soon as the first turn is over. Thats because they will have almost no place to expand considering the fact that KH holds only 2 cities directly in Greece(Athens and Sparta I think, the others beings controlled by Makedonia, correct me if I'm wrong) and there is only one rebel city near to be conquered. Even when grouped together, I have the feeling that KH is not that difficult for Makedonia or Epirotes to conquer (well I did not but maybe if Epirotes, Makedonia and KH are all managed by the AI they might pull off something)

So unless you come up with something that could make them independant but still powerful and playable:inquisitive: I think that taking 2 more slots for the sake 3 of creek city-states does not seem to be a good way to use the new factions slots that will be available.:no:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Well, when governed by the AI, KH comes out as the winner in almost 40%, Epeirus 50%, and poor Maks only 10%... I think dividing the KH would also be very benefitting for gameplay.:yes:

[SouthernTrendKill]

Scythians were in decline, so probably no.

Numidia is a hot candidate though.

Ethiopia was sadly not a strong power at this time and there are other factions with a much better claim.

Bastarnoz...you know...the only thing certain about them is their name. Otherwise there is no solid proof of what ethnicity they were and how they were organized.

Scandinavian culture. Hardly likely. At this time period were there any strong tribes who tried to carve a kingdom on the expense of others? And as for there being abundant iron, Viking weapons were of iron, but not of as good quality as the blacksmiths didn't have the techniques to remove the impurities.

And, as for roles to one day become great nations??? Thats extremely odd to think about, for last I checked no ones nation grew what so ever even into 400-500AD +, The only ones left were Rome, Egypt, The Brit's and by that time the many old kingdoms failed (i guess India too, u never added them either) And Germanic tribes made what is now France (Franks), and Germany, Even Romania if u really must push it. Great nations fell; Greece, Macedonian, Persia etc... They might of had ambitions of becoming great powers, and if they did they eventually failed. Scandinavian tribes would have only been rising, They never had declined. They went up. And as to make a power Tribe/Nation yes they fought amongst them selfs. O WAIT JUST LIKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES DID, Germany never really invaded other lands other then there own to make a single German unit, Rome tried to invade, but failed miserable.Scandinavian tribal wars for power would have been in all of northern Europe Northern Germany to North Russia, They all most made Russia,!!! .Wars to other nations other then Rome were few and far between. Also for conflicts making nothing and have few major powers come from them.... People in Germanic land immigrated creating new groups,!!! So many of the tribes you have now aren't "par-se", even make it to your very own standards. Gauls or never lasted either... THE FRANKS TOOK THEM OVER. But yet you have them in the game? Why might this be? Answer me that. Also the romans to took them over not after to long (before the franks). They might of made a nation, but they didn't last long, and pretty much didn't make a kingdom...

[Ludens]

Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc..?
True, but the unstable alliance argument applies to a greater or lesser extent to all factions. Even the Italian Socii revolted when Rome became powerful and refused to share out the booty. Being loyal to ones place of origin rather than to the idea a greater nation is hardly a exclusively Greek characteristic.

The problem with splitting up the KH is that it would result in both Athens and Sparta getting quickly gobbled up by either the Macedones or the Epirotes. They need to be in a single faction in order to survive. It seems a waste to spend two or three faction slots to a couple of not-very-powerful city states when there are so much more potential factions out waiting there.


And, as for roles to one day become great nations??? Thats extremely odd to think about, for last I checked no ones nation grew what so ever even into 400-500AD +, The only ones left were Rome, Egypt, The Brit's and by that time the many old kingdoms failed (i guess India too, u never added them either) And Germanic tribes made what is now France (Franks), and Germany, Even Romania if u really must push it. Great nations fell; Greece, Macedonian, Persia etc... They might of had ambitions of becoming great powers, and if they did they eventually failed.
Taking this argument to it's logical extreme, none of the empires in EB should be included since they all fell in history. But the achievement of an empire is not the criteria, it's the potential to form an empire. The Romans and Diadochi obviously had this potential. The Celts had it too, because they had once been an empire. The Suebi may also have pulled it off. The Scandiniavians on the other hand lacked a governemental structure that would allow empire formation. Heck, they probably weren't even unified. They wouldn't have been capable of serious expansion in the way the existing factions are. Could they have formed an empire? Well, who knows, if they were unified and proved themselves adaptable, but that seems rather slim ground for turning them into a faction when there are much more likely candidates available.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

True, but the unstable alliance argument applies to a greater or lesser extent to all factions. Even the Italian Socii revolted when Rome became powerful and refused to share out the booty. Being loyal to ones place of origin rather than to the idea a greater nation is hardly a exclusively Greek characteristic.
It's not exclusivly Greek, but in Greece it's arguably most developed. Greece was a world of independent cities, and that was the core of there Greekness in my onpinion, the absolute desire for independance. Rome achieved hegemony over most of Italy after the epic struggles of the past 200 years, first subdueing the other Latin cities, than the rest of central Italy. Athens never subdued someone outside Attica. Sparte never subdued anyone outside Lakonia. And although they had of course (great) influence outside their respective areas (at least Athens), neither Athens was superior to Sparte nor was Sparte superior to Athens. After the Peloponnesian War the hegemonial ambitions of both cities were halted, and both fell under the hegemony of a third party, Makedonia. How could the Koinon Hellenon have formed if it weren't for the Makedonian hegemony? Wasn't it after all a response to being governed from the outside? Wasn't it after all an anti-Makedonian rebellion?

I agree with you that one could apply the split-alliance-argument to other factions as well. Not on the Romans in my opinion, but most notably on the two Gaulic confederacies. And I must admit that I have problems to imagine how these two could have established an empire.


The problem with splitting up the KH is that it would result in both Athens and Sparta getting quickly gobbled up by either the Macedones or the Epirotes. They need to be in a single faction in order to survive. It seems a waste to spend two or three faction slots to a couple of not-very-powerful city states when there are so much more potential factions out waiting there.
What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.~;)

I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.

I repeat my claim that in the current build, the AI-KH comes out as the winner of the struggles for Hellas in more than 50%, and that is too much, really. Plus they almost never get destroyed, just due to the fact that the AI never goes by boat to conquer Rhodos (at least without BI). And even in my current Mak-campaign, Rhodos lasted almost 30 years (that's 30 years longer than Athens and Sparte) till I had the man power free to finish them off, resulting in a Rhodian fullstack invading Lykia. After all, the KH-cities weren't a strong faction. They were a faction with lots of problems to survive - which should be represented better. After all, there are no equal chances for all the factions. Some have it very easy, and some are somewhat doomed.

[Foot]

What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.~;)

Ludens isn't an EB-fellow. And we haven't said no to all of them.



I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.

I repeat my claim that in the current build, the AI-KH comes out as the winner of the struggles for Hellas in more than 50%, and that is too much, really. Plus they almost never get destroyed, just due to the fact that the AI never goes by boat to conquer Rhodos (at least without BI). And even in my current Mak-campaign, Rhodos lasted almost 30 years (that's 30 years longer than Athens and Sparte) till I had the man power free to finish them off, resulting in a Rhodian fullstack invading Lykia. After all, the KH-cities weren't a strong faction. They were a faction with lots of problems to survive - which should be represented better. After all, there are no equal chances for all the factions. Some have it very easy, and some are somewhat doomed.

So what you want us to do instead is to have three new factions. Arguably neither Sparta, Athens or Rhodes were in a position to expand in this time-period. I reckon we should get rid of KH entirely, just have those city-states in the south as rebel settlements. Far better. Then we can spend that one faction slot someplace more deserving.

If you want to play a proper KH game then you have to roleplay, if you are playing against them, then it doesn't matter if they are three factions or one, they won't act any different once they get a sniff of the player.

We won't be splitting up KH.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Skythia was more than declining, they were kind of declined...
I don't think any faction in EB is necessarily declining at the start. The 'barbarians' are independant and capable of forming power by taking neighbors. Gaul was up and down throughout the time frame but not necessarily declining. Carthage was rising. Rome and Parthia were about to rise. Ptolemai and Seleucia were fighting eachother and whoever won would be quite powerful - Seleucia historically won and did quite well for some time after the start time. Antigonos was building an empire. The only factions I would describe as declining would be Epirus and KH.

About KH, if they were lone cities they would be too weak to be considered for factions. Only together do they get a faction slot. If they were devided, they might as well be powerful rebel territories.

Personally, I'd like to see a Nubian faction. But they were too weak and didn't have a diverse military.

[ledzepp1000]

Taking this argument to it's logical extreme, none of the empires in EB should be included since they all fell in history. But the achievement of an empire is not the criteria, it's the potential to form an empire. The Romans and Diadochi obviously had this potential. The Celts had it too, because they had once been an empire. The Suebi may also have pulled it off. The Scandiniavians on the other hand lacked a governemental structure that would allow empire formation. Heck, they probably weren't even unified. They wouldn't have been capable of serious expansion in the way the existing factions are. Could they have formed an empire? Well, who knows, if they were unified and proved themselves adaptable, but that seems rather slim ground for turning them into a faction when there are much more likely candidates available.

True that the Scandinavians occasionally had conflict but that does not mean that they were never united. They did open trade with each other, and worked together for there benefit. They did go on offensives and raids of other tribes together that were not there own region many times. The Greeks for example whom had extremely advanced governments rarely worked together unless an outside source threatened Greece. Furthermore the Scandinavian government may not have been quite as advanced but it was as advanced as many of the tribes in Mesopotamia that were united into the Persian empire so the only factor missing from Scandinavians creating an empire was a single person to unite them. Also concerning there weapons the barbarians of Europe with the same basic weapons where responsible for the destruction of the romans among other factors. With those factors combined Scandinavia was basically organized the same way as the Germanic tribes and could have been easily organized to create a kingdom.

[Bootsiuv]

Athens never subdued someone outside Attica.

That's not entirely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

I understand the context of what you're saying, and agree that Athens and Sparta couldn't have built an empire in 272 BC....I just wanted to point out that Athens did indeed subdue, in an indirect way at first, but more directly as their power grew, those outside attica, albeit two hundred years before the start of our game. :2thumbsup:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Ludens isn't an EB-fellow. And we haven't said no to all of them.
I think the green colour of Ludens' name somehow irritated me.~D And I wrote this sentence about your "no" with an ironic smily.~;)


So what you want us to do instead is to have three new factions. Arguably neither Sparta, Athens or Rhodes were in a position to expand in this time-period. I reckon we should get rid of KH entirely, just have those city-states in the south as rebel settlements. Far better. Then we can spend that one faction slot someplace more deserving.
There is no need to feel offended about KH or getting sarcastic please. I quite like the Greeks, I just don't feel comfortable with such a thing like the KH, a Nazi-esque city and a "democratic" system together hand in hand building an empire. There is so much hatred and resentment between these two major Greek players that I just can't imagine them not splitting up immediatly after getting rid of the Makedones.


If you want to play a proper KH game then you have to roleplay, if you are playing against them, then it doesn't matter if they are three factions or one, they won't act any different once they get a sniff of the player.

We won't be splitting up KH.
OK. But there IS one occasion when KH is not so nice: Playing a distant faction and then usually seeing it on the map having conquered whole Greece and up to Thrace. That's not so funny, almost like the Romans conquering Poland.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

That's not entirely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

I understand the context of what you're saying, and agree that Athens and Sparta couldn't have built an empire in 272 BC....I just wanted to point out that Athens did indeed subdue, in an indirect way at first, but more directly as their power grew, those outside attica, albeit two hundred years before the start of our game. :2thumbsup:
Thanks for your hint.

[Cybvep]

Gameplay-wise, another German and Iberian faction (probably Celtiberians) would be needed. I mean, the Sweboz have too little trouble both in the beginning and in the later game. Oh, and IIRC, guys from the "German Team" informed us in the "Sweboz slightly underpowered" thread that they wanted to add the another German faction. In case of the Celtiberians - an another faction in Iberia would create a situation similar to Aedui-Arverni thing...

Numidia would also be good (more trouble in Africa is always good, as it's rather empty in almost every TW game or mod), and its inclusion seems quite likely, seeing as it always was a some kind of "a faction that the team wanted to include but couldn't (because of the faction limit)".

Greece is already cluttered and the only thing that it needs is balancing, and it's a never-ending process.

Syracuse would be a "one-city faction" that would stop Karthadastim, SPQR and (sometimes) Epeiros for a short period of time and would be eliminated very early in the game, so it probably should stay as the Eleutheroi city (maybe with an unique unit or two).

Another faction (or factions) in Asia would be good and the more trouble the Seleucids have, the better. Maybe the Galatians? Or the Pergamon?

Oh, and the Getai are passive, but maybe some competition would liven them up?:yes:

[Seleukos Syriakos]

some suggestions for newe factions:

*Western Germanic Faction e.g. Chatti or Cherusci to prevent a Italia/ Graeco/ Gallo-Germanic Empire
*Eastern Germanic Faction e.g. Bastarnae (suggested before) or maybe Neuriji to challenge/ force the Sauromatae to expand (in most games they remain dormant; like my latest Makedon campaign it's already 180BCE and Sauromatae only captured 1 city and lost another to Pahlavi)
*Illyria (for about the same reason as the Western Germanic Faction)
*Numidia/ Berber Tribes, Maybe an expansion of Africa, Carthage had some colonies along Africa's west coast founded by Hanno
*Illyria (as suggested earlier)
*Rival faction to challenge the Casse in Britian
*Aksum/ D'mt/ some Ethiopian faction
*Another Steppe faction such as Massagetae or Dahae
*Nabataeans to challenege Seleucid expansion into Arabia
*Galatians to bring more conflict into Anatolia and possibly waging war with Pontos or Seleucia
*Bosporan Kingdom to challenge Sauromatae and Hayasdan
*Maurya, Pandya and Yuezhi (If there the map expands east)

I think Gaul is already crowded enough with 2 factions, Syracuse would also not be a good idea because it would get destroyed very early (according to Cybvep)
Greece is already crowded enough and to make a new faction there (e.g. Aetolian/ Aechean League) would cause lots of trouble


p.s. why does Koinon Hellenon represent the Chremonidean league (according to EB's website)? the Chremonidean war did not start until 268/269 BCE

[I Am Herenow]

I can't speak for the other factions you've mentioned, Seleukos Syriakos, but the EB team has already stated that


They won't expand the EB map in EB2, due to them already being at the RTW province limit (and consequently at the M2 province limit: it's the same).
The fact that they will have no additional territory or provinces to play with means the EB team won't include Maurya.
EB has already decided against emerging factions, and as the Yuezhi entered the EB map after the start date, they won't be included either.

[Foot]

p.s. why does Koinon Hellenon represent the Chremonidean league (according to EB's website)? the Chremonidean war did not start until 268/269 BCE

Well I assume there was some diplomatic talks between the cities for a few years before then. There was nothing else suitable in the timeframe and so we used that alliance.

Foot

[Antagonist]

2. Pergamon
a) Historically/politically I like the idea of having a Greek city state in Asia Minor, like the KH but not a member. Was Pergamon actually like that, or was it more Persian?
b) Would their military be successor-style, or basically the same as the KH, or KH with a twist (serious cavalry, chariots, whatever)? I ask because I figure their important competition is the Seleucids, and EB already has "KH vs successor" or "successor vs successor" gameplay covered. If there were to be another KH style military inthe game, I'd rather it were Syracuse who face Rome/Carthage and would bring new gameplay to the mod.

I believe they would be Hellenic (at least relative to Pontos or whatever) but I'm not sure. IIRC both Pergamon and Syracuse have been confirmed as possibilities, probably less likely that they would both be in though.


3. Ireland
Would this be like the Casse or the Gallic factions, or something new?

You can get a flavour of what they would be like from the Goidilic units in EB1. As I understand it from previous discussions, the proposed Goidilic faction (Erainn) would start off fairly similar to the Casse, but over time reforms and so on would introduce more Iberian influences to their units. So they would potentially end up as a kind of Casse/Lusotannan hybrid in terms of units. I suppose that the reason there is interest in them for a second British Isles faction is that they would be more unique than the Brigantes or whatever, who would presumably be very like the Casse miltarily, like the Aedui/Arverni.

Antagonist

[Ludens]

What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.~;)
As Foot said, I am not an EB member. But I am sure that the EB team has considered many of the options mentioned in this thread.


I agree with you that one could apply the split-alliance-argument to other factions as well. Not on the Romans in my opinion, but most notably on the two Gaulic confederacies. And I must admit that I have problems to imagine how these two could have established an empire.
Perhaps empire is the wrong word, but the Cubi-Biturge confederation (of whom the Aedui were the inheritors) once ruled over Gaul and a large chunck of central Europe, so it was possible.

You are right that the KH would be the most fickle of alliances represented as a faction, but what I am saying is that they wouldn't have been the only uncertain one. IIRC both the Lusitanians and the Sauromatea represent confederacies of several tribes, and even the Romans had at one point to deal with a serious uprising of the Italian Allies. So including a Greek unified faction is not that much of a stretch, and it's either that or drop them alltogether.


I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.
Athens didn't have a large army, or else they wouldn't have needed the help of Sparta. There is more ways of weakening them than splitting them up. If they are too strong now than splitting them will make them too weak. Alone, Athens didn't stand a chance against Macedon, even in the weakened state it was.


True that the Scandinavians occasionally had conflict but that does not mean that they were never united. They did open trade with each other, and worked together for there benefit. They did go on offensives and raids of other tribes together that were not there own region many times. (...) Furthermore the Scandinavian government may not have been quite as advanced but it was as advanced as many of the tribes in Mesopotamia that were united into the Persian empire so the only factor missing from Scandinavians creating an empire was a single person to unite them. (...) With those factors combined Scandinavia was basically organized the same way as the Germanic tribes and could have been easily organized to create a kingdom.
All true, yet that applies to many tribes. They could have been united. They could have invaded nearby territory. They could have developed a strong governement. I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.

[Krusader]

Why should we include Scandinavians? True they might have been as powerful as some other tribes, but some of those other tribes we are considering ended up carving up kingdoms of their own.

Which leads to my next point. We have more sources on those tribes that were more successful and we are not going to choose factions which we will have much trouble getting sources on and manpower to work on. *cough*Saba *cough*
And be careful with what evidence you come with. I've seen some theories and "evidence" here at the University in Bergen about ancient Norwegians.
Like us being Caucasus immigrants due to that we have some words remarkably similar to Assyrian. Although that theory has a few merits...

Now take the Bastarnae/Bastarnoz. They were probably Germanic and we know a few bits about what they did and who they fought for. However there is still speculation on how Germanic they were, were they Germanic at all, how much influenced were they by Sarmatians, Getai & Celts? Were they Sarmatians or Getai?
We don't know much about the Bastarnae, which is probably why they will not be in EB2.

[SouthernTrendKill]

[QUOTE I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.[/QUOTE]

I'm sooo lost on this more powerful candidates... There is few more then you can offer to add more variety to the game... Are we not supposed to balance that Germanic tribe??? YES!!! Then well... A northern tribe would at least keep them on an offense to the north, instead of them just flying by there normal game of fighting "rebels". And please ... when you played as sweboz in Eb1 you know pretty much you were left alone the majority of the game; unless you took the liberty to actually get in there and fight. Every other faction at lest had a neighbor that was in range early in the game and was of an equal fight
... unlike rebels surrounding you... And to say there are better candidates is a little too much, What if the Scandinavian tribes took off, and united early, what if they become a pro dominate terror in the north a little faster,(Like every thing does in that game, which is true: "Rome, Germania, Dacia") etc... So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose. And as for use in that game; it does give a major balance that was needed, and some people have mentioned that as well...

[Ludens]

I'm sooo lost on this more powerful candidates... There is few more then you can offer to add more variety to the game... Are we not supposed to balance that Germanic tribe??? YES!!!
Err... No. And even if "we" did, then it doesn't necesarily require a faction to to do so. You can also beef up the Eleutheroi or weaken the Sweboz. And even if you do need a faction, then it doesn't have to be the Scandinavians. There is several major tribes closer by and with a greater impact on history. So why the Scandinavians and not, for example, the Cimbri or the Noricenes?


And to say there are better candidates is a little too much, What if the Scandinavian tribes took off, and united early, what if they become a pro dominate terror in the north a little faster,
That's three "what if's". I think you have proven my point: the Scandinavians failed several requirements required to become an empire. That could have changed, but it's unlikely, and certainly in 272 B.C. they were in no position to start an empire.


So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose.
I already mentioned the Cimbri and the Noricenes, but one could also think of the Belgae and the Bastarnoz (if they won't be included, alas, they still were a power in their own right). And this is just the same area. So again, why should a faction be included that needs to be unified and strenghtened first before being capable of forming an empire?

[Xehh II]

The best ever Idea is making Sparta, Athens and Rhodes Sperate factions.

[King Orko]

Numidia should be smaller(in reality it never controled Maurtania)

[ledzepp1000]

All true, yet that applies to many tribes. They could have been united. They could have invaded nearby territory. They could have developed a strong governement. I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.

Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.

[Foot]

Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.

Lugians and Basternoz would both be different. Truth is, we don't like factions that back onto a map edge. A scandinavian faction will not be making it in, we don't have the expertise and it wouldn't offer much in the way of gameplay benefits (an eastern germanic faction would do much better).

Foot

[SouthernTrendKill]

Err... No. And even if "we" did, then it doesn't necesarily require a faction to to do so. You can also beef up the Eleutheroi or weaken the Sweboz. And even if you do need a faction, then it doesn't have to be the Scandinavians. There is several major tribes closer by and with a greater impact on history. So why the Scandinavians and not, for example, the Cimbri or the Noricenes?


That's three "what if's". I think you have proven my point: the Scandinavians failed several requirements required to become an empire. That could have changed, but it's unlikely, and certainly in 272 B.C. they were in no position to start an empire.


I already mentioned the Cimbri and the Noricenes, but one could also think of the Belgae and the Bastarnoz (if they won't be included, alas, they still were a power in their own right). And this is just the same area. So again, why should a faction be included that needs to be unified and strengthened first before being capable of forming an empire?

1st off "Cimbri" is a Scandinavian tribe! THERE FROM JUTLAND THAT'S DENMARK! That's apart of the Nordic unions, and economics today! They have a Nordic cross on there flag too :laugh4: ! LOL And Bastarnoz, Belgae your right they were some what powerful in there on right, but no way could they contend with the others... Adding "Cimbri" wouldn't be such a bad idea I guess, but still, would not it be interesting to show a farther north tribe. Which would be much like Cimbri.

[Rundownloser]

I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?

I also think that a Greek/Scythian faction in the Crimea would be a stellar idea. The Spartocid dynasty of the Bosporan Kingdom could benefit from a really cool blend of Greek and Pseudo-Greek units along with a healthy dose of horse archers (Perhaps similar to Saka post-reforms). I don't know too much, but this link has some information, particularly names of various rulers and lengths of their rule:

http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/crimea.html#Bosporus

If you scroll to the top and hit home, and then general index, you can look up dynasties from all over the place. All told, pretty nifty.

[Wolfman]

Historically I think Syracuse (like the two numidian kingdom) is too important not to put in.

[Morte66]

I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?

But that's what's so interesting about playing them...

[Rundownloser]

Was Syracuse capable of meaningful expansion/conquest during the period? I'll be honest, I don't know the history well enough to adjudicate this point (All I know is that they might have conquered Messana if not for the Carthaginians). The second question is, assuming that Syracuse wasn't capable, do they still deserve the spot? It seems like they'd get dominated with Carthage to one side and Rome to the other (albeit a few years before they saw Rome). I know that the siege of Syracuse ended in 212 or so, but that was because it had rebelled against Roman rule. Since 263, it was an allied state of the republic under Heiro II, who took power seven years earlier. Wouldn't that basically be a type 4 government? As a faction, in game terms, it only existed for 9 years since the beginning of the game, before being conquered by Rome (in essence).

On another note, perhaps instead of splitting up the Greek faction, more anti-Spartan/anti-Athenian traits could be introduced, or maybe even an enhanced and expanded version of the Barcid/Anti-Barcid trait system. You could have the missions pop up (a la nobles/pope missions from M2) for one goal or another and their completion or failure could increase/decrease unrest in certain cities, effect FM loyalty, etc.

[Ludens]

Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.
I am not really up to date on the Germanic tribes, but as I understand it the Sweboz were the most sophisticated of them, governementally. At least they were mostly unified, which is not something that can be said about the Scandinavians. Also, we know very little about the tribes that inhabited Scandinavia at this point in time.


1st off "Cimbri" is a Scandinavian tribe! THERE FROM JUTLAND THAT'S DENMARK! (...) Adding "Cimbri" wouldn't be such a bad idea I guess, but still, would not it be interesting to show a farther north tribe. Which would be much like Cimbri.
I stand corrected. Although I do wonder why you keep prefering a northern tribe over an existing one like the Cimbri.


And Bastarnoz, Belgae your right they were some what powerful in there on right, but no way could they contend with the others...
The Belgae launched a major invasion of Gaul and defeated the Aedui just before the start of the game. It was only the intervention of the Carnutes that turned them back. The Bastarnoz consistently were a thorn in the side of first the Dacians and then the Romans. What did the Scandinavians do?

[Trax]

I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?

Syracuse would be extremly challenging an fun to play IMHO.
Also Syracuse as a rebel city lasts decades, Syracuse as a faction will probably last a lot longer bacause the AI is much more agressive towards the Rebels the other factions.

[Krusader]

I'm sooo lost on this more powerful candidates... There is few more then you can offer to add more variety to the game... Are we not supposed to balance that Germanic tribe??? YES!!! Then well... A northern tribe would at least keep them on an offense to the north, instead of them just flying by there normal game of fighting "rebels". And please ... when you played as sweboz in Eb1 you know pretty much you were left alone the majority of the game; unless you took the liberty to actually get in there and fight. Every other faction at lest had a neighbor that was in range early in the game and was of an equal fight
... unlike rebels surrounding you... And to say there are better candidates is a little too much, What if the Scandinavian tribes took off, and united early, what if they become a pro dominate terror in the north a little faster,(Like every thing does in that game, which is true: "Rome, Germania, Dacia") etc... So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose. And as for use in that game; it does give a major balance that was needed, and some people have mentioned that as well...

Why this obsession with Scandinavian tribes?? They did not expand majorly or have substantial proof they attempted to.

Plus if we want to limit the Sweboz we have many candidates with more sources available on: We got the Belgae tribes in west. Some of the rebel areas in Germany contain Germanic tribes we can up to faction-level. We have the Helvetii. Boii in Austria/Czech Republic area. Aesti and Lugii/Lugians in east and also Rugians.

Unless we have major evidence and sources for a relatively obscure faction I can safely say EB will go for more known factions.

Although, if you can supply me with evidence about Scandinavian tribal customs, military, administration, religion and history I'll be sure to forward it as a suggestion. We are hobby historians mainly (with a core of professional ones). We are not wizards. We can't just use a magic wand and voila find sources & evidence for whatever we want. So no Scandinavians unless there is evidence & sources we can use to make one. We won't make up stuff either.
And should you find evidence make sure to check who wrote it or found it and described it, as you can't take any text or archeological find's description without a critical view.

[Patriote]

Well said Krusader :2thumbsup: Asking for a faction or a list of factions, even if you don't know if it would be possible to add it or them is one thing (total acceptable I might add) but asking for a faction almost starting a "war" because someone told you would not be possible to add it rather silly :thumbsdown:

If you want to see so badly a Scandinavian tribe, you should be here arguing that they should be include but rather looking out for well documented sources that will prove your point that they should be include.

---------------------

Proving the others wrong does not prove that you are right ... :wall:

[SouthernTrendKill]

I stand corrected. Although I do wonder why you keep prefering a northern tribe over an existing one like the Cimbri.


LOL, dude that would be awesome :2thumbsup: if you put Cimbri in. I don't see a reason why not to put them in. I just like the more northern tribes better, there ultimately the same, but Cimbri did have a battle history with Rome, that I know from research. So they would cut the availability? I hope soo.... Tribes father north just don't have any history able to find on them at hand, truly it's extremely hard. But they would be very like the Cimbri.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Why this obsession with Scandinavian tribes?? They did not expand majorly or have substantial proof they attempted to.

Plus if we want to limit the Sweboz we have many candidates with more sources available on: We got the Belgae tribes in west. Some of the rebel areas in Germany contain Germanic tribes we can up to faction-level. We have the Helvetii. Boii in Austria/Czech Republic area. Aesti and Lugii/Lugians in east and also Rugians.

Unless we have major evidence and sources for a relatively obscure faction I can safely say EB will go for more known factions.

Although, if you can supply me with evidence about Scandinavian tribal customs, military, administration, religion and history I'll be sure to forward it as a suggestion. We are hobby historians mainly (with a core of professional ones). We are not wizards. We can't just use a magic wand and voila find sources & evidence for whatever we want. So no Scandinavians unless there is evidence & sources we can use to make one. We won't make up stuff either.
And should you find evidence make sure to check who wrote it or found it and described it, as you can't take any text or archeological find's description without a critical view.

BBLAHAehaHAtrjarnaj!!! OK, OK!!! I have been giving out info, it seem ledzepp has as well. But tonight I shall find some "facts". I guess I will giving links to my findings???
Military, I can say with ease that Germanic tribes would be very close. OOO BUT YOU NEED FACTS!!! right.... I'll do my best.

[Ludens]

LOL, dude that would be awesome :2thumbsup: if you put Cimbri in.
Just for the record: I am not an EB member.


I don't see a reason why not to put them in.
Limited number of faction slots for one, limited knowledge about them for another, limit impact on history for a third. You can't add factions just because they may have achieved something. You need to show they were a serious player, even if they lost in the end. Those are the facts you need to look for. In this particular case, you will have to find a Scandinavian tribe that was sufficiently unified in or around 272 B.C., and possessed the military might and political acumen for extensive expansion.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Limited number of faction slots for one, limited knowledge about them for another, limit impact on history for a third. You can't add factions just because they may have achieved something. You need to show they were a serious player, even if they lost in the end. Those are the facts you need to look for. In this particular case, you will have to find a Scandinavian tribe that was sufficiently unified in or around 272 B.C., and possessed the military might and political acumen for extensive expansion.

Well, they did attack the Roman empire a few times. How many people in that time period actually "ATTACKED" Rome??? (as in starting a war with Rome, NOT being invading them ESPECIALLY A BARBARIAN ONE AT THAT) They wanted land, they settled lots of land in Germania, and Cezh; mostly the northern part of Germania where there home land was close too. And attacked Rome on its northern front ( ITALY AT THIS TIME). Not sure if they managed to stay there, and if they did it wasn't for a long time. But that is simply history...

That in my opinion is one helluva contender.

[KARTLOS]

[QUOTE=Centurio Nixalsverdrus]Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...QUOTE]

Yeah but how would you manage to make them powerful enough to be "city-faction" knowing the AI they will end up fighting each other as soon as the first turn is over. Thats because they will have almost no place to expand considering the fact that KH holds only 2 cities directly in Greece(Athens and Sparta I think, the others beings controlled by Makedonia, correct me if I'm wrong) and there is only one rebel city near to be conquered. Even when grouped together, I have the feeling that KH is not that difficult for Makedonia or Epirotes to conquer (well I did not but maybe if Epirotes, Makedonia and KH are all managed by the AI they might pull off something)

So unless you come up with something that could make them independant but still powerful and playable:inquisitive: I think that taking 2 more slots for the sake 3 of creek city-states does not seem to be a good way to use the new factions slots that will be available.:no:

if you give sparta and athens fll stacks to begin with and a fair bit of cash, then at least one of them would have a fighting chance.

[CrownOfSwords]

Syracuse has to be in there..... they held their own against the Carthagians for a long time and even the Romans... for awhile. If they managed to beat carthage out of sicily they could also be a buffer against Rome. Personally id like to see more Greek factions, it seems right now in EB1 Greece and Macedon fight a pretty brutal war against each other and whoever wins(which seems pretty random to me in my campaigns) then blitzes a huge portion of the map. If there were more factions in there it would be even more brutal and take longer before one of them unleashes the blitzkrieg :P

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Well, they did attack the Roman empire a few times. How many people in that time period actually "ATTACKED" Rome??? (as in starting a war with Rome, NOT being invading them ESPECIALLY A BARBARIAN ONE AT THAT) They wanted land, they settled lots of land in Germania, and Cezh; mostly the northern part of Germania where there home land was close too. And attacked Rome on its northern front ( ITALY AT THIS TIME). Not sure if they managed to stay there, and if they did it wasn't for a long time. But that is simply history...

That in my opinion is one helluva contender.
But when did they attack Rome?

[Geoffrey S]

Personally I'd be interested in seeing the Koinon made a more involving experience. Right now it seems too tight and solid, detracting from the differences between members. It would be interesting to have one city playable with the others being gained (or lost) through missions, but I guess that would require a lot of scripting.

Personal faves for new factions? Syracuse, a Numidian kingdom, Pergamon, Bosporan Greeks, Massiliotes (though I guess they're unlikely but I like their Greek-Gallic thing), a Belgic tribe, another Germanic tribe (either Lugii or Basternae would be great), and Goidils. Some Celtiberians and Illyrians would be nice, too, but I don't know if they'd be enough unified.

[Trax]

But when did they attack Rome?

They (Cimbri & Teutones) triggered the Marian reforms. The war took place between 113BC - 101BC

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Yes, two crushing defeats for the Romans (Noreia 113 and Arausio 105).

[Krusader]

Personally I'd be interested in seeing the Koinon made a more involving experience. Right now it seems too tight and solid, detracting from the differences between members. It would be interesting to have one city playable with the others being gained (or lost) through missions, but I guess that would require a lot of scripting.

Personal faves for new factions? Syracuse, a Numidian kingdom, Pergamon, Bosporan Greeks, Massiliotes (though I guess they're unlikely but I like their Greek-Gallic thing), a Belgic tribe, another Germanic tribe (either Lugii or Basternae would be great), and Goidils. Some Celtiberians and Illyrians would be nice, too, but I don't know if they'd be enough unified.

The Koinon will stay as it is.
However we will look into making it harder to be them if you are successful and begin expanding out of Greece to represent the members thinking it's safe enough for them to leave the Koinon.

[Foot]

Yes, with more flexibility with events and what they can trigger, we should be able to do something quite nice with them.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

They (Cimbri & Teutones) triggered the Marian reforms. The war took place between 113BC - 101BC
And that is 160 years after the start date.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

And that is 160 years after the start date.
What does that sentence mean? It's 159 years after the start date and 127 years before the end date. Or, in other words, it's right in the middle of EB's timeframe.

[SouthernTrendKill]

But when did they attack Rome?

Hmmm, around 104BC.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Thereby you've already provided yourself an answer. We do not do emerging factions, period.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Did anybody ask for an emerging faction? That the Cimbri and Teutones first appeared in 113 doesn't mean that they didn't exist before.

Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they?

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Did anybody ask for an emerging faction? That the Cimbri and Teutones first appeared in 113 doesn't mean that they didn't exist before.

Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they?

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.


Couldn't have said it better my self.

[Geoffrey S]

Good job putting words into other people's mouths. Since when has anyone claimed that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writings? Far as the EB team has said they are heavily reliant on archeological evidence for the Germanics, and that the evidence points to them as being more centralised than the other options and hence more useful as a faction in a TW game. They represent factions as they were at the start, namely 272; if the various options weren't worth representing at that date, they aren't worth including, which is why the Yuezhi were dropped.

Besides, you want Skandza? RTR 7.0 will have them. They've got their reasons, EB has theirs.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My thoughts exactly. :yes:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Since when has anyone claimed that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writings?
I'm not saying that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writing.


Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they[question mark]

and


So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm not saying that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writing.
Then I suggest you rephrase your reasoning, because the section quoted was not that clear.

I can see where some of the confusion comes from. Tellos Athenaios implied that because their mention occurs around 104 bc they would have to be an emerging faction; clearly their history goes back further than that, so that wouldn't be a valid reason. I think MarcusAureliusAntoninus put it more clearly: what's being argued against by both is including people such as the Cimbri and Teutones on the basis of a moment many years after 272 in which a major action brings them into the attention of Greek/Roman authors, which is what was being implied by SouthernTrendKill and in reaction to whom both were writing. The EB team is not stating that the Cimbri and Teutones didn't have a history before their encounters with the Romans, but are arguing against their inclusion on the basis of achievements of the 2nd century bc.

Like the other factions in a situation such as that of the Sweboz at the time, such as mainly the other 'barbarian' factions, new factions need archeological remains to form the basis of evidence for the faction in 272 bc.

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.
The last highlighted line is like preaching to the converted. That's the whole basis of EB in a nutshell. It also shows that the reasons the EB team has for not including such factions as the Cimbri and Teutones (which has not actually even been explicitely stated will be the case) you concur with in the first highlighted line aren't fully understood. They aren't saying they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded: they are saying that the reasons given for their inclusion by for instance SouthernTrendKill aren't enough to warrant inclusion, because those reasons imply they would have to be emerging factions because the first time those peoples had an relevance is midway through the campaign game. That's where the idea that the Cimbri and Teutones would have to be an emerging faction came from, not from EB team members.

I must note that the EB team has not gone further than showing why the reasons given here by fans aren't enough to warrant including certain discussed factions. That does not mean they aren't candidates, since that does not mean stronger evidence in favour doesn't exist or isn't being discussed in the EB development area.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Then I suggest you rephrase your reasoning, because the section quoted was not that clear.

[...]

The last highlighted line is like preaching to the converted. That's the whole basis of EB in a nutshell.
I know, and I think I misunderstood Tellos Athenaios statement about emerging factions. I try to be more clearly in my statements next time, I'm sorry for the confusion.~:0

[Geoffrey S]

No problem. I probably overreacted a little, certainly when considering that English isn't your native language (I think?). It can certainly make things awkward when everything is text based here.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Well, I can say that there will be more than one faction in Germania. :2thumbsup: But since we can't put them all in, we have to decide which ones are most powerful and could have been expansionistic in 272BC.

Also, it isn't too good to make a faction with their 'back to the wall'. So it doesn't make since to add a Scandinavian faction. They would have been interested in stuff off the map, as well as on the map. Same reasoning behind a Nubian faction or an Indian faction.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Well, I can say that there will be more than one faction in Germania. :2thumbsup: But since we can't put them all in, we have to decide which ones are most powerful and could have been expansionistic in 272BC.

Also, it isn't too good to make a faction with their 'back to the wall'. So it doesn't make since to add a Scandinavian faction. They would have been interested in stuff off the map, as well as on the map. Same reasoning behind a Nubian faction or an Indian faction.

Having a nation against a wall would then require them to fight away from there homeland to expand. The Scandinavians tribes fought romans and Germans for land and regional domination, but just like Germans, Gaul, and Dacia other barbarian etc..., skirmishes, and petty tribal conflicts were of the result.

[Rundownloser]

But a nation with a "back to the wall" has a flank they never have to protect, even during the late game. With a "back to the wall" they can allocate troops in a historically inauthentic fashion, i.e. completely ignore protection for that border of their territory.

[ledzepp1000]

Having a nation against a wall would then require them to fight away from there homeland to expand. The Scandinavians tribes fought romans and Germans for land and regional domination, but just like Germans, Gaul, and Dacia other barbarian etc..., skirmishes, and petty tribal conflicts were of the result.

Thats a good point. Requiring them to move their front to their southern front. Also Will make the swebos move their front to the north.

[Rundownloser]

Fearing I didn't quite elucidate my point: It is an unfair advantage from a gameplay perspective and it is unrealistic from a historical perspective.

[IrishArmenian]

I would like to see the ancient vah-jynas....they were very prominent near the bush.
Despite being a bunch of pussies, they've controlled the world forever!
(Yes, quite the Greg-like pun, I feel filthy)

Ethiopia would be a fun faction and add lots of variety!
An Irish faction... never. Not at this time.

[I Am Herenow]

But a nation with a "back to the wall" has a flank they never have to protect, even during the late game. With a "back to the wall" they can allocate troops in a historically inauthentic fashion, i.e. completely ignore protection for that border of their territory.

True - it would be like using the corner in a battlefield, except on the campaign map (and unintentionally).


An Irish faction... never. Not at this time.

Well it would be nice to give the Casse someone to fight, and not let them build forces up in Britain at their own pace and then D-Day Aedui + Arverni, taking out half of France in one go (well, it's what I do :beam:).

[Tominokar]

Italian:
Rome

Hellenistic:
Epirote Kingdom
Aetolian League
Achaen League
Makedonia
Ptolemaic Empire
Seleucid Kingdom
Baktria
Bosporos

African:
Carthage
Numidia
Aksumite Kingdom

Barbarian:
Celtiiberians (Spanish)
Lusitanians (Spanish)
Audui (Gallic)
Arverni (Gallic)
Sweboz (Germanic)
Chatti (Germanic)
Frissii (Holland region)
Casse (British)
Getae (Dacian)
Ardiaei (Illyrian)

Nomadic:
Sarmations
Sakae

Eastern:
Nabatea
Sabae
Pontus
Armenia
Parthia
Persian Rebels (Emerges for Seleucids or Parthians)

[Antagonist]

Well it would be nice to give the Casse someone to fight, and not let them build forces up in Britain at their own pace and then D-Day Aedui + Arverni, taking out half of France in one go (well, it's what I do ).

Something the AI does too (in EB1 anyway) There needs to be some competition there, either in the form of another British Isles faction (may as well be the Erainn, if the comments in the other thread about the scope of their activities are accepted) or having something like the Belgae in Gaul. Personally I'd like both, but the latter if I had to choose.

Antagonist

[geala]

To be honest I would prefer fewer new factions and more units for the factions. But I was not asked about it.:laugh4:

My new factions would be:

1. Belgae and/or

2. Boii

Good to restrain the Sweboz + there is some place left in middle Europe. No new Germanic faction cause I have already difficulties with one mighty Germanic tribe league at that early time. Of course it is a bit of a waste not to use the existing Germanic units for another contender but...

3. Masaesulii
A Numidian faction to keep the Carthaginians busy from the beginning. Although I don't like the appearance of the actual Numidian units in EB entirely it would be fun to play the skirmisher style. Units could also be used by the Carthaginians. A bit critical: I would never have thought of Numidia as a potential world ruler, esp. at this early date. But this is true for some other factions too.

4. "Irish"
Of course not the Irish but one of the tribes who lived in later Ireland. Nice units and a counter to the Casse.

5. Bosphorian Kingdom
Long lasting, nice units possibly and in a room able to cope with a new faction

6. Massilia or Syracuse
I would rather like to have Rhodes as a faction, similar to Venice in M2TW. Ok, the Rhodians unlike Venice formed no empire, but were a very important trade nation and played some part in the Epigone wars, f.e. in the naval defeat of Philipp V. at Chios 201. But I read that KH will not be divided, so I would opt for Massilia (or Syracuse) for trade factions. Massilia could be defended very easily. With the M2TW merchant wars some new playing experience could be within.


Hmmm, my ideas left me...:sweatdrop:
Perhaps:
- Meroe/Ethiopia: already dismissed, I see the reasons but it hurts
- Cyrene: a lot of free room in Africa?
- Galatians and/or Pergamon: both useful as competitors for Asia Minor? Both were not entirely in the place in 272 however (but the same for Baktria) and easily crushed by the other powers, or not?
- Atlantis: there are rumours of a mighty empire just in the middle of the sea in the west: interesting units with laser weapons and flying devices

No:clown: :thumbsdown: :
Germanic tribe in today Germany: reason see above
Bastarnae: please no fantasy units (not much known about them, or not?)
Illyria: no potential strong candidate (but what about the Germanic tribes?...öhm) and I need room for my Epiros campaigns

[IrishArmenian]

I really want to see Illyria included!

[paullus]

some good points Geala. As you noted, the Bastarnoz seem a rather poor choice because of the low level of archaeological evidence needed to reconstruct them. At the moment, we're trying hard enough just to put together the information for a single Bastarnoz unit--I'd rather not imagine trying to reconstruct the whole faction.

[Arsen of Arax]

Well it would be nice to give the Casse someone to fight, and not let them build forces up in Britain at their own pace and then D-Day Aedui + Arverni, taking out half of France in one go (well, it's what I do :beam:).

What about having a gallic , celtic faction instead of an "irish". But still in Britain, to give the Casse a good fight about the british isles.

[geala]

Anthony mentioned the Erain on page 1, a Celtic people in today Ireland becoming later the Goidils. I find that fascinating. And is it not a good reason for a big reform? Just another British Celtic faction would be not so interesting for me.

[ManOwaR78]

Rebel Faction

1 Roman Rebel Faction
2 Ptolemaic Rebel Faction (Hellenistic)
3 Seleucid Rebel Faction (Hellenistic)
4 Roxolani Rebel Faction

New Faction

5 Illyria
6 Bosphoran Kingdom
7 Pergamon
8 Numidians
9 Thracian

Emerging Faction

10 Yuezhi

[Son of Perun]

I would like to see another African faction, preferably kingdom of Meroe or Aksum.

[Bootsiuv]

Italian:
Rome

Hellenistic:
Epirote Kingdom
Aetolian League
Achaen League
Makedonia
Ptolemaic Empire
Seleucid Kingdom
Baktria
Bosporos

African:
Carthage
Numidia
Aksumite Kingdom

Barbarian:
Celtiiberians (Spanish)
Lusitanians (Spanish)
Audui (Gallic)
Arverni (Gallic)
Sweboz (Germanic)
Chatti (Germanic)
Frissii (Holland region)
Casse (British)
Getae (Dacian)
Ardiaei (Illyrian)

Nomadic:
Sarmations
Sakae

Eastern:
Nabatea
Sabae
Pontus
Armenia
Parthia
Persian Rebels (Emerges for Seleucids or Parthians)


That list is right on IMO, except for two things.

1. Take out Persian Rebels, and add the Attalids' Pergamon.
2. Take out Nabatea, and add the Kingdom of Kyrene.

Just my two cents. :2thumbsup:

[Tominokar]

That list is right on IMO, except for two things.

1. Take out Persian Rebels, and add the Attalids' Pergamon.
2. Take out Nabatea, and add the Kingdom of Kyrene.

Just my two cents. :2thumbsup:

I agree with Pergamon actually, but not sure why you would prefer Kyrene to Nabatea- it would probably be my next choice if there was a 31st faction slot though :yes: But Nabatea would do a lot more to challenge both the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

[Bootsiuv]

What kind of historical research has been done on the Nabateans? I wasn't aware that they were important enough to be their own faction. Honestly, Nabatea would be cool. I'm just not familiar with any of their history. They would probably be quite similiar to the Sab'yn, yes. Oh well, as long as Pergamon gets thrown in their somewhere, I'll be happy. I really have no idea why that faction seems so appealing, it just does.

[Rundownloser]

Yeah, Pergamon has to be in there as it was a noticeable check to Seleucid power in Asia Minor. I also think that Galatia would be a great addition (along with Pergamon and the Bosporan Kingdom) that would really spice up the area around the Black Sea, which at the moment I honestly believe is a little sparse at present.

[Rundownloser]

P.S. I am allowed to be needlessly redundant and repeats things, reiterating things as I deem necessary, which is within my rights.:laugh4:

[KARTLOS]

is ther not a real duuplicity between this thread and the other "factions" thread"

If there were to be a syracuse faction ( i think it would be very poular as most eb fans are veteran now and would love the challenge!),

what would be there unique units?

I am imagining they would have a fairly similar rostar to the KH?

[Puupertti Ruma]

If there were to be a syracuse faction ( i think it would be very poular as most eb fans are veteran now and would love the challenge!),

what would be there unique units?

I am imagining they would have a fairly similar rostar to the KH?

Which is in a way a good thing, as M2TW's unit and model cap is the same as RTW's so a faction sharing lots of units with another would save some precious model space.

[KARTLOS]

Which is in a way a good thing, as M2TW's unit and model cap is the same as RTW's so a faction sharing lots of units with another would save some precious model space.

yes i agree, but to make them a truly worthwhile/intersting faction it would be useful if they had some unique units.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well the unit limit may be the same, but I heard some happy news concerning the model limit. Wasn't it, just about every unit its own?

[Anarzius]

...

[Anarzius]

...

[Foot]

Um, we have never tried to imitate the way history went. If the Gauls finish their civil war early, then you as Rome will have to deal with their new found strength. Sometimes I see the Aedui and Arverni sit in a stalemate for decades. Give up on following history, and try to play historically.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The AI is hardcoded to go after the 'rebels' first and ignore other factions until they no longer border 'rebels'. This is why they always expand strangely. If they border a rebel province, they will put it as the priority target. The AI also seems incapible of fighting a war on multiple fronts, that is why you often see AS 'abandon' Antioch.

While I'm at it I will add that the AI is piroritized to attack you, so they will do things like conquer worthless provinces just so that they can get near you. And they will gang up on you. Peoples that should be enemies will be best friends if they are both at war with you. And the AI seems reluctant to attack your enemies, even if they share the enemy and are allied to you.

[Anarzius]

...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Well, Dumatha is gone for the next version, and Gerrha doesn't seem to appeal to the Seleucids, so you won't have them wandering the desert as much (from what I've seen on the internal versions). Though, they are still incapable of fighting on two fronts. In the last game I played, they were doing well against the Ptolemai, then Pahlav attacked them and they shifted all their effort eastward, losing Antioch, Damascus, & Edessa (and I took Asia Minor from them).

From what I've seen the AI still can't fight too well on multiple fronts in M2TW either. Sometimes they even choose the stupidest front to dedicate themselves too, as well. One time I saw England put all of its effort into defending Oslo. France and HRE took their continental holdings and Scotland took nearly the whole British Isles, but Oslo was well defended. :sweatdrop:

I wish, for example, the AI couldn't change their capital and they would put all their effort into defending their capital to the death.

[Krusader]

I wish, for example, the AI couldn't change their capital and they would put all their effort into defending their capital to the death.

Actually I'd rather wish we could somehow designate "priority cities" for the different factions. If they have the city under control they will focus on defending it, but if the enemy has it they will focus on reclaiming it.

Seleukids would be Antioch, Seleukeia at least and probably Ekbatana & Susa as well.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Second!

In my Mak-campaign of which I'm sure I told everybody so far, the dirty Romans betrayed me, and I decided to punish them. For that purpose I had a full stack of mostly Celtic mercenaries with whom I rampaged through all of northern Italy, sacking Mediolanum, Segesta, Bononia, Ariminum and Arretium. Arretium was their capital at this time because Roma was once taken by the Epeirotes after I drove them out of Hellas and thus Arretium stayed place of the Senate although Roma was reconquered.

Well, after sacking Arretium, their new Capital was now... no, not Roma, Rhegion! In the meanwhile I landed a full professional Royal Army plus Reserve Division in Southern Italy, and I conquered Taras, and Arpi with the Celtic remnants, and then my Kleronomos Basileios conquered Rhegion. And guess where the honorable Senate decided to meet from then on? No, not Roma... Segesta! That means when I finally conquer Roma, it'll be just another Italian city...

In reality, Rome as a faction could barely survive if Rome would have been taken.

[Morte66]

I think the AI unit feature I'd like to see is "don't start a war with another faction voluntarily if you're already at war within five provinces in any direction".

[Philip of Massalia]

From 272 to 125BC, Massilia (not Massila !!!!) was a regional power of importance, both economically and culturally. The greeks of that city had alliances with both Emporion and Sagunta in Spain, while establishing good relations with Rome.

We have only sources for the Roman point of view on this Alliance, but archeologists I met in Emporion stressed that Massilian influence is much more visible in "Greek Spain" than Roman. (founded on 3rd century coinage and ceramics)

Hannibal wisely chose to bypass Massilia by the North before crossing the alps.

For all these reasons, Massilia (or Western Mediterranean Greek) faction could be an interesting challenge.

[Krusader]

From 272 to 125BC, Massilia (not Massila !!!!) was a regional power of importance, both economically and culturally. The greeks of that city had alliances with both Emporion and Sagunta in Spain, while establishing good relations with Rome.

We have only sources for the Roman point of view on this Alliance, but archeologists I met in Emporion stressed that Massilian influence is much more visible in "Greek Spain" than Roman. (founded on 3rd century coinage and ceramics)

Hannibal wisely chose to bypass Massilia by the North before crossing the alps.

For all these reasons, Massilia (or Western Mediterranean Greek) faction could be an interesting challenge.

Massilia is a pretty bad choice compared to many other factions in terms of military, influence and importance, so the EB team scrapped it.

[Geoffrey S]

This (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86313) might be interesting when it comes to influencing expansion directions, but I don't know how much was coincidence.

[KuKulzA]

to add to the current faction list?

I would say something to give the Carthaginians and Egyptains to fight in Africa, perhaps another eastern faction, and someone to stop the Sweboz from overrunning everyone else. Also the Illyrians seem to be a very interesting group, i think it'd be worth looking into that...

perhaps...

Chatti / Chasuarii = Germanic rival faction to Sweboz
Illyria / Dalmatae / Scodrans = Illyrian faction to pose problems for later Romans and Eporite expansion
Cyrenaica / Libya = pose commercial and military rival of Kart-hadast and Ptolemaioi
Chandraguptan /NW India = pose a problem for Sleucids and Baktrians trying to expand into India, but they should beware of potential Saka or Parthian invasion

These will probably be small factions so some perks should be considered...

perhaps the Chatti can have a slightly different set of units from the Sweboz, and as their military organization was known so perhaps this can be shown through increase discipline and better supplying of armies?
Illyria can perhaps have the best (cheapest?) navy of all barbarian factions and make use of the Thracian peltasti style of warfare, the Greek style of hoplites, as well as their own? They will of course begin somewhat weak, like the Getai.

Cyrenaica can be a greek influenced trade-power. With a unique blend of many native libyans auxiliaries and greeks.
Chandraguptans will have the great repetoire of Indian armies and can have a homeland arrangement where they get missions and bonuses from the off-map capital of Pataliputra


looking back in this thread I have foudn that these 4 have been mentioned but I don't know how well they will be recieved... but thats another vote for Indian, Chatti, Illyria, and Cyrene! :yes:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Cyrene wouldn't be a very good choice due to gameplay factors. They would have one rebel town to take (and if we need a new province somewhere Augilia is the first to go, so they would have nothing to take), then they would be sandwiched between two huge empires and would be a small bump in the road.

[Geoffrey S]

"Due to gameplay factors?" If they're imported enough to be considered (and I'll admit I don't know if they are) then that shouldn't be a reason. They would be playable by humans, which would be enough I would have thought.

[Foot]

The important thing to remember at this point is that there is very little between the factions when it gets to this point, if judging on the normal factors; gameplay must become a factor to decide between them.

Foot

[Geoffrey S]

True; I guess after the first few new factions are added the most important ones are included, and the rest is almost filler.

[paullus]

It is. Most of the remaining factions can be portrayed very nearly as well through eleutheroi assistance methods we've been developing. The main reason for making them factions is to add some flavor to your gameplay options, and get a little bit more AI versatility out of their regions, compared to what we'd get from eleutheroi mini-factions.

That said, gameplay reasons are still one of the last things we consider. So say we're talking about two factions, if they get through a whole gauntlet of historical considerations without a clear winner, only then does gameplay really become a relevant concern. That's pretty much what happened with a faction like Kyrenaia, which technically still has a shot at making EB2. By our consideration, Kyrenaia had similar economic, cultural, and military power to some other potential factions, though it historically lacked the staying power of any of our other factions (being absorbed into the Ptolemaic kingdom a few decades into the game). That last aspect was already weakening them, but when we considered that they would have little to no expansion options outside of war with juggernaut factions to the east and west...well, the odds got pretty bad for dear ol Kyrenaia.

[Geoffrey S]

But then, wouldn't it be feasible to include the Yuezhi as an emerging faction in the East? I can understand the reluctance to use such a feature anywhere else on the map, since the history leading to a potential emergence is totally different after the first few turns. But the Yuezhi emerging hinges on factors outside the campaign map and anything happening there, and they did play a massive role in the east of the map.

Just my thoughts. I know EB isn't planning to include emerging factions, but in this case I think an exception would be worthwhile. definitely if a number of other possible contenders may as well be portrayed by (assisted) rebels.

[KARTLOS]

It is. Most of the remaining factions can be portrayed very nearly as well through eleutheroi assistance methods we've been developing. The main reason for making them factions is to add some flavor to your gameplay options, and get a little bit more AI versatility out of their regions, compared to what we'd get from eleutheroi mini-factions.

That said, gameplay reasons are still one of the last things we consider. So say we're talking about two factions, if they get through a whole gauntlet of historical considerations without a clear winner, only then does gameplay really become a relevant concern. That's pretty much what happened with a faction like Kyrenaia, which technically still has a shot at making EB2. By our consideration, Kyrenaia had similar economic, cultural, and military power to some other potential factions, though it historically lacked the staying power of any of our other factions (being absorbed into the Ptolemaic kingdom a few decades into the game). That last aspect was already weakening them, but when we considered that they would have little to no expansion options outside of war with juggernaut factions to the east and west...well, the odds got pretty bad for dear ol Kyrenaia.

if gameplay factors come into consideration, would you consider a public vote to gauge popularity of some of the factions, taken from a shorltlist which you guys have already drawn up based on what is historically feasible. (i.e from the sounds of it a scandinavian faction + extra german faction, despite being popular would most likely not make the shortlist due to historical and/or map considerations)

[paullus]

If we were to do such a thing, it would need to be a poll where the public couldn't see the results, so as to fit with our modus operandi. ;)

The Yuezhi are an interesting case.

[Morte66]

After playing a string of European campaigns, I'd like to add a third faction suggestion after the Helleno-Skythians and Syracuse: the Boii.

Based on their EB1 incarnation: their military mix is different from existing factions, they have numbers and wealth (mines), and they have a defensible capital. I've seen the Romani, Sweboz, Epeirotes, and Getai hit their borders or their walls at roughly the same time, which is a good mix of opposition (sword and spear infantry, skirmishers, light and heavy cavalry, sarissa phalanxes, horse archers...).

So they look like a pretty interesting faction to play, with their own military and multiple styles of opposition, and some room to expand and prosper. They bring something new to the mod, unlike say Pergamon which is pretty much KH2 (classical Greek military hemmed in by successor types). And as an AI faction they'd provide the oft-requested check on the Sweboz.

Also, I think I remember some of the EB team saying that there's relatively good historical information on them, and that they were more unified/organised than most candidates in that area at the start date.

[rorarii]

This (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86313) might be interesting when it comes to influencing expansion directions, but I don't know how much was coincidence.

Excellent find Geof, but will it work in MIITW?

R

[Justiciar]

I'm thinking;
Bastarnoz
Kimbrioz
Gotanoz
Brigantae
Boii
Syracuse
Galatia
Bosphorus

That's probably 2 too many Germanic factions, but one can dream.

[geala]

It's more of a nightmare, isn't it? ~;)

It's a pity that Massilia is dismissed, I understand your reasons but on the map it would be a so easily defendable merchant city. Perhaps Rhodos could be a faction...? Ok, I'm already quiet.:tomato2:

[Bootsiuv]

I think the EB team should reconsider factions like Massillia, Syracuse, and Cyrene.

If the main reasons are lack of historical evidence, fine.

But the gameplay reasons you speak of....being a small hemmed-in faction with 1 or 2 provinces before you meet a superpower.

Those are often the funnest factions to play. I used to love Serbia in the XL mod of M:TW simply for that reason!

Personally, I think factions like Ptolemaioi and Arche Seleukiea can be harder than smaller factions....there's so much to do and take in right from the first turn of the game, it can almost feel a little overwhelming (so much so that I haven't even seriously tackled an AS campaign).

I just hope you'll remember that many of us are R:TW veterans at this point, who have lurked on these boards for years now. I think most of us will be able to take a small faction and do good things.

[I Am Herenow]

But if not playing as them, it might be a bit strange - especially for a player who's new to EB - to see "Faction Destroyed" after two turns. Moreover, it will ruin all the work that goes into creating that faction if the player never really has an opportunity to fight it unless he is bordering it. Not to mention that if the player were to go to war with a one-province faction, it would all be over in a turn or two, again wasting much of the team's effort as the player can't fully appreciate that faction's strengths and weaknesses.

[Bootsiuv]

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree.

I think having a faction like Syracuse (Has that ever been a playable faction in ANY mod for RTW?) would be somewhat exotic, and fail to see why Syrakousai would be so utterly defeated so quickly.

Historically, Syrakousai held out for quite some time against Carthaginian advances, although I'm not 100% on Syracusean history, I know they were a big pain in the ass for them.

Qarthadastim starts out relatively weak in Sicilia, and I fail to see why Syrakousai wouldn't have just as good of a chance of pushing them off of the island, especially if they start out with a decent field army.

[Bellum]

I know it's really not viable, but I'd like to see a faction in Ireland. What I know of the anchient Irish is so interesting, but then I don't think they invaded other people, or had much of an army - at least not one that could compete with certain other factions.

Anyway, if you could make an Irish faction, I think the whole island would be one faction. There were different tribes, but from what I've read, it seems like Ireland was pretty unified until whatever happened in the north.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I really didn't know Syrakousai had been dismissed? Where did that happen? :inquisitive:

[Bootsiuv]

Someone said it in here, I assumed he was part of the team. I didn't pay much attention, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. If they haven't been dismissed, awesome. Please include them....they would probably end up being one of my favorite factions.

[Treshka]

Numidian and Syracuse are the ones I would like to see included and I dont know you guys but I really think another roman faction would be great, missing the civil wars

[Sir Edward]

I really didn't know Syrakousai had been dismissed? Where did that happen? :inquisitive:


Massilia is a pretty bad choice compared to many other factions in terms of military, influence and importance, so the EB team scrapped it.

I think this is the post. Maybe there was some confussion. I do hope Bosphorean Kingdom and Caucasian Iberia is added to make the Black Sea region a little more interesting.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Still, Massilia and Syrakousai are two completely different powers.

[Bootsiuv]

#148
Son of Perun
Junior Member
Junior Member


Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 17 Re: New factions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess these factions will not make it to EB2(though they are popular):
Numidians - not united enough, never had ambitons or oportuniti to build empire
Illirians - same as Numidians
Syracuse - between carthagian anvil and roman hammer
northern Germanic faction - no place to expand
Cyrene - too weak to be real danger to either Ptolemies or Carthage
Galatians - powerful mercenaries but otherwise band of robbers
Meroe - (my beloved ) only 2 possible units (who said this!?)
Persians - there was no real opposition to Seleucids in 272 BC
Yuezhi - arrived about 50 years after the game starts

This was the post. It was in the other faction thread right under this one. I didn't pay much attention to the poster, and I have all sigs turned off to speed things up because I have dial-up on this computer, but I do have access to high-speed to dl stuff like EB :)

Anyways, everyone started talking like it was the truth, so I just assumed he was a member and knew what he was talking about. It's all good though, just give me Syrakousai, and I will crush the carthaginian scum.:smash: :2thumbsup:

[Bootsiuv]

BTW, I agree that Syrakousai and Massilia are two completely different powers.

If you include Massilia, then arguments could be made for any greek colony....How about Emporion as a faction? :P

[Puupertti Ruma]

BTW, I agree that Syrakousai and Massilia are two completely different powers.

If you include Massilia, then arguments could be made for any greek colony....How about Emporion as a faction? :P



Massilia is a pretty bad choice compared to many other factions in terms of military, influence and importance, so the EB team scrapped it.

Errm. Krusader is a member, so Massilia is quite definitely not going to be in EB II. Fortunately no member has said anything about Syracuse so we can still continue to speculate their inclusion.

:edit: Corrected the quote.

[moonburn]

BTW, I agree that Syrakousai and Massilia are two completely different powers.

If you include Massilia, then arguments could be made for any greek colony....How about Emporion as a faction? :P

emporion would be part othe massilia kingdom perhaps ...

anyway i don´t see why a western mediterranean greek kingdom would be so far fetched an alliance beteween massilia and syracuse to reconquer sardinia and corsica back from the poenii

since the 6th century bc greeks and poenii had a standing war wich was what allowed carthage to become the poenii superpower by being the defender of punic interests against the greek expansionists (peace treaties beteween massilia and carthage interests are well know the same for the wars beteween carthage and syracuse)

the 1st punic war happened to stop the poenii from cutting of the mediterrenean in two (conquering messina would mean there was no available passage beteween the western and eastern mediterranean unleass you bowed down to the poenii since the other passage was beteween lilibeo and carthage itself)

probably that can be the syracusean victory conditions to reconquer all the greek lands stolen by the poenii (the islands my friends the islands)

[Ludens]

Why on earth did you respond to a two-year old post? The discussion has moved on since then in other threads.

[Gray_Lensman]

Why on earth did you respond to a two-year old post? The discussion has moved on since then in other threads.

Might I politely suggest that if the forum moderators do not like old threads being responded to that they consider "closing" them.

[Hax]

What's the point? It's like answering a question about two weeks after someone has asked it to you.


probably that can be the syracusean victory conditions to reconquer all the greek lands stolen by the poenii (the islands my friends the islands)

Refer to this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=112915&highlight=Syrakousai).

[ThePianist]

MTW2 has 198 province limit VS RTW's 199. Which means one province gets axed.

And I don't think anyone on team would want thus to expand the map further east. Which also leads to the reason the Mauryans will probably NOT be included as their political centre was in eastern India and including only parts of that faction is a no.

The Yuezhi were dropped since at 272 BC they did not inhabit any areas on the EB map and it took over a century until they did.

Also a sad consideration is that while model limit in MTW2 seems to be limitless (RTW had 255 model slots) the unit limit on 500 is still in place, so any new factions should have a minimum of unique factional units.

This is most unfortunate.
Unless there are free unit slots available, there shouldn't be any new factions then, because it would take away units from existing factions.

Is there a way to mod the .exe so that more than 500 units can be memorized by the game?
This, after all, is a mod and no profit is made with it, only fun with history.


My first suggestion of a faction is the Gladiator uprising of Spartacus.
The faction-specific infantry would be perhaps 5 different types of gladiators, maybe 7 ?
You'd get more advanced units as gladiator schools are upgraded.
Gladiator training would only take one round, but their combat statistics can be upgraded by retraining them in buildings.
You'd also get to train existing Celtic units, Thraikian units and some Germanic units, since those races were the main components of gladiators.
Other than that, units would come from mercenaries.

Also, Spartacus and his generals would be able to persuade units to defect from the enemy army (either the entire army, or some units from the enemy army). I have no idea how this could be implemented, it can certainly be done with some programming. So the Spartacus and his generals would have a charisma level, and the opposing army would have a charisma level, and then some random flips of coin.

The campaign would start in 73 BC, with Rome already expanded in Hispania in the West (Sertorius has a split-away kingdom in Iberia), and Pontos in the East (Rome at war with Mithridates). Spartacus' faction would start as a horde outside Capua. (is hording possible in M2TW?)

Maybe this could be made into a separate provincial campaign, a specially-designed campaign (maybe even with a different map, more zoomed in?). That way, some far-away factions can be eliminated, so that the Spartacus faction would have more faction-specific units.

My other suggestion is, the Palmyrene Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyrene_Empire) in 260 AD.

My third suggestion is, a second Germanic faction, or a second Iberian faction (see the mod "Iberia Total War" for detailed Iberian factions, there are 4 or 5).
If so, then they need different campaign music, to show that they are from a different faction.

My 4th suggestion is the Numidians.

My 5th suggestion is, the Galatians. However, this doesn't have to be in the grand campaign. This could also be a separate, provincial campaign. Otherwise, there would be 3 Gallic factions, and it would occupy a precious faction slot. In a separate, provincial campaign, you could start as the Galatians in Galatia, and the Aedui and the Arverni can be combined into one "Gaul" faction (with an option of permanent alliance, so that if you wiped out all the other factions on the map, except that other Gaul faction, then your campaign is victorious, and you don't have to go to war against the last faction.)

My 6th suggestion is, Illyria. The faction should start with a fleet of pirate ships, carrying troops. That way, you can raid the coast of Italy, or other places. The faction should have rapid and cheap construction of ships.

My 7th suggestion is, a separate provincial campaign starting in a year when there were more than one faction ruling Roman territories, like Sertorius in Iberia in 73 BC, or "the year of 4 emperors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors)" in 69 AD.

[The General]

Is there a way to mod the .exe

As far as I know, that would be illegal (hence some things are described as "hardcoded").

Also, EB [II] depicts the world as it was in 272BC and they have decided against (iirc) the use of emergent factions.

[Ludens]

Might I politely suggest that if the forum moderators do not like old threads being responded to that they consider "closing" them.

I prefer to keep old threads open so that people can present new information or perspectives on old discussions. That helps keep the information in one place. However, in this case there are two newer threads on the subject, so I want to know why moonburn posted here.


As far as I know, that would be illegal (hence some things are described as "hardcoded").

Also, EB [II] depicts the world as it was in 272BC and they have decided against (iirc) the use of emergent factions.

Correct on both counts, although, to be stricly correct, you cannot mod the .exe. Modding is changing the data files; changing the .exe falls under programming. Also, changing the .exe file is not in itself illegal, but distributing altered copies (or unaltered ones for that matter) is, as you are giving away free copies of SEGA's program.

[Caulaincourt]

Med2 allows 31 factions... Also i think it's enought to represent all the ancient powers of this time.
I'm right when I say Parthia will be included ?

[Ludens]

Med2 allows 31 factions... Also i think it's enought to represent all the ancient powers of this time.
I'm right when I say Parthia will be included ?

The Partians (Pahlavans) are already in EB1, and all EB1 factions will be included (although I think some may be given an overhaul). Keep in mind that one of those 31 factions is going to be the "rebel" faction.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

EB1 factions are thus:
1. Lusotann
2. Kart-Hadast
3. Romani
4. Aedui
5. Arverni
6. Casse
7. Sweboz
8. Getai
9. Epirotes
10. Koinon Hellenon
11. Makedonia
12. Ptolemaioi
13. Arche Seleukia
14. Pontos
15. Sauromatae
16. Saka
17. Pahlava
18. Baktria
19. Hayasdan
20. Saba

Next is Rebel Faction
21. Rebels

Next are two confirmed factions
22. Massaelyian (sp?) Numidians
23. Pergamon

That leaves 8 slots to fill

Some logical ones would be:
Boii
Belgae tribe, dont know which
Brigantes
Arevaci or another Celt-Iberian tribe
Syracuse
Chatti, Churusci, Marcomanni or some other Germanic tribe
Caucasian Iberia
Atropatene
Galatian tribe

Out of all those I would guess Brigantes probably the least likely to get in just because of limited knowledge of warfare and culture in the British Isles at the time. Which leaves...8! Im gonna guess at least 4 are right. :)

[Skullheadhq]

Atropatene'd be killed in 2 turns by either the Seleukids or the hay

[bobbin]

From my poll a while ago,

Arevaci - A celtiberian tribe
Érainn - A Goidelic (irish) tribe
Aquitanians/Vascones - Non Celtic speaking peoples of southwestern france and northeastern iberia, ancestors of the Basques.
Illegert - a heavily celticised iberian tribe from north eastern iberia (around emporion)
Nervii - A belgic tribe with germannic influences
Brigantes - Powerful british tribe residing in northern england.
Helvetii - Celtic tribe from the alps
Massalia - Greek city state in southern france (modern day marseille)
Ligures - A highly celticised italic people in north west italia
Syracuse - A greek city state in sicily
Boii - A Powerful celtic tribe in eastern central europe (modern day Bohemia)
Lugii - Germanic or slavic tribe in eastern central europe (modern day poland and germany)
Dalmatae - Illyrian tribe
Skordiskoi - Powerful celtic tribe in the balkans (modern day serbia and surrounding areas)
Rhaetians - Alpine tribe with either Celtic or Etruscan roots, or both
Tylis - Celtic kingdom ruling over majority thracian population in southeast balkans.
Bosporan Kingdom - Hellenic kingdom on the north coast of the black sea (modern day Crimea)
Galatia/Bythinia - Celtic kingdom in union with hellenic kingdom (modern day turkey)
Kappadoika - Persian sucessor kingdom, Rebelious satrap of the seleukids(eastern anatolia)
Kartli - Also know as Caucasian Iberia, main rival for the Hai, native Caucasus people, ancestors of modern day georgians.
Atropatene - Persian sucessor kingdom, eastern caucasuses (modern day Azerbaijan)
Nabateans - Semitic Arab Kingdom in the Sinai
Palmyrae - Arab kingdom in modern day syria
Massaesylians - Main rival of the Masaesyli and other major tribal power in numidia
Maures - African kingdom in modern day Mauritania. Ancestors of the Moors
Qataban - Southern arabian state in modern day yemen.
Hadrumaut - Another southern arabian state in modern day yemen.
Massagetae - powerful nomadic tribe in central asia, lie north of the Pahlava.
Kamboja's - Iranian people in northwestern india/hindu kush
One of the team members (Moros) said that five of these are factions in EBII, I've also crossed off other factions that were discounted in other threads.

If i was to hazard a guess the five from here would be: Arevaci, Boii, Bosporan Kingdom, Kartli and Nabataeans.

[WarpGhost]

My hopes would be Boii and Lugii, because some activity is badly needed east of Sweboz. Illegert would add some action between Gaul and Lusota/Carthage, whilst fusing Gallic and Iberian troops without requiring much unique. Bosphoron Kingdom would also add some interest to the north of the Black Sea. I'd prefer something more south-east in the Selucid region, but of all the choices there Atropatene sounds the most promising in that region.
I really dont like the look of any of the others; they're generally adding nothing to already crowded areas. The addition of Pergamon doesnt fill me with confidence on this point unfortunately; nations should only be added if they fill a genuinly useful game niche, not simply because they historically existed.

[Phalanx300]

The Boii and Lugii seems very possible, would like a Batavian unit though, seeing how specific units are mostly given to units who did or had something special they may be more worthy then a Chauci unit.

[bobbin]

I really dont like the look of any of the others; they're generally adding nothing to already crowded areas.
Yeah thats why Galatia or Kappadoika aren't very likely in my eyes as Anatolia is crowded enough as it is (5 factions, 6 if you count KH as well) Mind you the criteria for becoming a faction involves things such as expansionistic tendencies, good historical information etc which means we're unlikely to see factions in some of the more empty parts of the map (like the baltic region).

[lobf]

I know I talk about this all the time and I've brought it up before, but what is the reason for keeping the Casse? I really don't remember.

As far as I understand (and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me) but not only were the Isles not unified politically, but they didn't do much of anything off of their island.

If you have a Casse faction, the first thing the player will do is unify the island, probably conquer Ireland. Then we're left with essentially a colonial-era Great Britain, earning piles of dough, and sending military excursions over the channel to conquer Europe. Doesn't that seem weird/wrong to anyone else?

I don't understand how you can consider any political institution in Britain at the time significant enough to warrant a faction. Anyone want to clear this up for me? (again...?)

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Atropatene'd be killed in 2 turns by either the Seleukids or the hay

You could argue the same thing for Hay or Baktria. Both stuck between Seleucids and another faction. (Sauromatae and Saka respectively)

I suppose Atropatene would have less room to expand however.

Oops I forogot to mention Bosporans in my first post. Oh well, maybe scratching Atropatene wouldnt be such a bad idea.:dizzy2:

In terms of keeping the Casse, it ensures that Britain is not a joke to take as the Sweboz or Gallic factions. Historically, you are correct, no tribe united the isle before the Romans arrived. However its addition imo is merited both to make the isle harder to take and also because British tribes did lend money and possibly troops to help their Gallic and Belgic allies during Caesars wars in Gaul.

Also, remember the game is about presenting the situation at 272 and letting everything go from there. What did or didn't happen makes no difference.

[ziegenpeter]

In terms of keeping the Casse, it ensures that Britain is not a joke to take as the Sweboz or Gallic factions. Historically, you are correct, no tribe united the isle before the Romans arrived. However its addition imo is merited both to make the isle harder to take and also because British tribes did lend money and possibly troops to help their Gallic and Belgic allies during Caesars wars in Gaul.


Well then cut britain out? Leaves more provinces for the rest.
And

Also, remember the game is about presenting the situation at 272 and letting everything go from there. What did or didn't happen makes no difference.
is not entirely true. The importance of a faction after 272 does influence the consideration wether a faction is included or not.

[Skullheadhq]

Well then cut britain out? Leaves more provinces for the rest.
And
is not entirely true. The importance of a faction after 272 does influence the consideration wether a faction is included or not.

Well, Epeiros was largely gone after 272BC....

[bobbin]

Eh? The Aiakid line lasted until 231bc, then the Eproite League until 167bc thats hardly "largely gone"

[-Praetor-]

Well then cut britain out?

The EB team won't cut a single province off of the British Isles. That has been already decided.

[lobf]

You could argue the same thing for Hay or Baktria. Both

In terms of keeping the Casse, it ensures that Britain is not a joke to take as the Sweboz or Gallic factions. Historically, you are correct, no tribe united the isle before the Romans arrived. However its addition imo is merited both to make the isle harder to take and also because British tribes did lend money and possibly troops to help their Gallic and Belgic allies during Caesars wars in Gaul.

Also, remember the game is about presenting the situation at 272 and letting everything go from there. What did or didn't happen makes no difference.

But these are gameplay considerations rather than historical ones, which the EB team constantly distinguishes as criteria for inclusion.

[ziegenpeter]

The EB team won't cut a single province off of the British Isles. That has been already decided.
Ok I was a bit polemic there. What
What I meant is "The fact that the British Isles are on the map shouldn't be the single or a major reason for keeping casse as a faction in game because you could cut them out"
And don't get me wrong, I don't raise the plea that Casse should be kicked out.

[WarpGhost]

I'm inclined to agree on the Casse analysis; my heart says keep them in, but my head points out that, especially with the game having the restrictions on units/factions/provinces it does, it does make a lot more sense to invest the potential savings elsewhere, where they can be more consistantly useful. Dont get me wrong, one of my favourite things about EB was that it included factions like Baktria and Epeiros; but because of both geography and AI limitations, this is one of the cases (like with Pergamon and many of the potentials on the list) I would argue the other way.

[ziegenpeter]

The questions are: How many other potential factions we know enough about that they could be included as a facion? Did they expand/were a miltary power? And would they add variety to the game? I think the last point is also important since I'd rather let Casse and/or Saba in than having a gazillion of exchangeable hellenic factions. Finally we should consider the starting point of a potential replacement for a "peripherical" faction, because replacing Casse by another faction on the outer rims of the map would't make any sense, right?

[WarpGhost]

Casse represent something of a particularly questionable faction because they arent just peripheral, they're peripheral and strongly seperated geographically, which takes them to a whole different level of peripheral. Saba arent quite as bad, but the empty distances involved do put them towards that level too. Even Sarmations, Saka and Sweboz have regular and notable contact with 2-3 other factions. Thats because though peripheral, their geography doesnt create significant inherent problems to their ability to impact the game. Also, dont forget that the more factions you add to the periphery, the more contact you create for those around them too.

[athanaric]

OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...

[ziegenpeter]

Casse represent something of a particularly questionable faction because they arent just peripheral, they're peripheral and strongly seperated geographically, which takes them to a whole different level of peripheral. Saba arent quite as bad, but the empty distances involved do put them towards that level too. Even Sarmations, Saka and Sweboz have regular and notable contact with 2-3 other factions. Thats because though peripheral, their geography doesnt create significant inherent problems to their ability to impact the game. Also, dont forget that the more factions you add to the periphery, the more contact you create for those around them too.
Agreed.

[WarpGhost]

OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...The problem with that is two-fold as I see it:

1) The AI isnt exactly proven at being able to cope with it. If both Casse and the other factions were able to easily handle the geographic obstacles, it wouldnt be a problem at all (if only Casse can, then you create the additional problems as when a human plays them, rather than really solving anything).

2) You create the situation whereby nothing is solved if their influence is removed from Begium (it immediatly reverts to the same geographic problem as current); but also where they also have untouched heartlands from which to generate money (and possibly the occassional 'naval invasion' to drop off reinforcements, which the AI presumably manages better than actual aggressive naval invasions), which makes their influence disproportionate to the Belgium region itself when they retain it.

[bobbin]

You guys are forgetting EBII's going to be on Kingdoms, naval invasions are much more common in that game which will mean the Casse won't be as isolated (or safe) as they are in EB.

[lobf]

OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...

Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?


You guys are forgetting EBII's going to be on Kingdoms, naval invasions are much more common in that game which will mean the Casse won't be as isolated (or safe) as they are in EB.

That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.

[The General]

Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diviciacus_%28Suessiones%29). Well, Divitiacus was a Belgae king, but he held power in Britain, from which we can deduct that there was interaction between the two regions.


That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.

Uhm, what? If anything, creation of cash cow regions is a terrible reason not to include a faction.

Even if Britain was not as developed as Gaul, Cassivellaunus had waged war against several other British tribes, so there was effort by tribes to exert control over each other through the use of arms and create hegemony, and not just patronus-cliens-relationships.

Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)

[bobbin]

Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?
They're the Catuvellauni of later times who Caeser accused of supporting the gauls and belgae in their wars with him.


That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.
It also makes any faction there more active on the continent and more open to invasion by continental powers which is essentaily fixes (hopefully) the main problems people have with the Casse (that they never seem to do anything beyond conquering britain and they never face any real threat from other factions).

[lobf]

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diviciacus_%28Suessiones%29). Well, Divitiacus was a Belgae king, but he held power in Britain, from which we can deduct that there was interaction between the two regions.

100+ years after the start date?

Not to mention, this kind of supports my case that the isles were a prize for the continental powers rather than the home of a faction-worthy political institution.



Uhm, what? If anything, creation of cash cow regions is a terrible reason not to include a faction.

It doesn't seem accurate for that region at that time. I don't think Britain was a center of great wealth in the world, which it turns into once the isles are united (because of the way the game engine works)


Even if Britain was not as developed as Gaul, Cassivellaunus had waged war against several other British tribes, so there was effort by tribes to exert control over each other through the use of arms and create hegemony, and not just patronus-cliens-relationships.

Are you saying this is unique? Name a tribe that doesn't wage war with neighboring tribes. I'm wondering when a significant political entity actually emerged in the Isles, rather than a series of waning and waxing tribes.


Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)

Yes, it has. I'm just disagreeing with one selection.


They're the Catuvellauni of later times who Caeser accused of supporting the gauls and belgae in their wars with him.


It also makes any faction there more active on the continent and more open to invasion by continental powers which is essentaily fixes (hopefully) the main problems people have with the Casse (that they never seem to do anything beyond conquering britain and they never face any real threat from other factions).

What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?

[WarpGhost]

Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)Yes, but the EB team likes to make the point that its always open to reconsidering what its doing. So unless thats untrue, there's a fair number of people who still arent convinced about Casse, and their questions havent been addressed (although the official Saba answers I've seen have been more hand-wavey than solid game design sense, so its possible Casse inclusion isnt being taken as a mechanics question, as most non-EB posters are approaching it here; part of the justification for Saba I've seen was because of the importance of the Arabian peninsula in modern times, rather than a purely ancient history approach).

[eddy_purpus]

It hasn't been decided, but we'll probably want to keep these secret, and then slowly release them over time. Just to piss you guys off! :beam: There are some definites that we've already decided on (though we havent done any voting on them yet); factions that lost out to the saba and saka vote, when we put those two factions in.

Personally I would love to start working on EB2 when the next patch comes out, but we'll have to see about that. Currently we are working on the next big release, so that is priority for now.

Foot

You were always such a tease:wall:



:beam:

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?

Several factions accomplished very little and are yet included. KH springs to mind.

Factions are likely included based on historical importance, gameplay reasons, and unique flavor.

Casse have a small amount of historical importance, but for gameplay reasons they are important and they certainly add unique flavor due to heroic units and reliance on chariots instead of cavalry.

[bobbin]

What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?
Not much beyond making life a little more difficult for Caeser in his Gallic wars, the point is they tried. As Brave Sir Robin says many factions already in EB didn't accomplish much, the reason they're in is because the had the ambition to conquer other lands.

[lobf]

Several factions accomplished very little and are yet included. KH springs to mind.

Factions are likely included based on historical importance, gameplay reasons, and unique flavor.

Casse have a small amount of historical importance, but for gameplay reasons they are important and they certainly add unique flavor due to heroic units and reliance on chariots instead of cavalry.

Gameplay shouldn't and, in theory, isn't a consideration. By the team's admission in the past.


Not much beyond making life a little more difficult for Caeser in his Gallic wars, the point is they tried. As Brave Sir Robin says many factions already in EB didn't accomplish much, the reason they're in is because the had the ambition to conquer other lands.

By your own admission, their entire role in history was defensive, and they show up 100+ years after the start date.

I don't think there's any comparison between the Greek city-states and the B.C. tribes of England in term of cultural development, addition to the historical record, and influence in world politics.

[bobbin]

By your own admission, their entire role in history was defensive, and they show up 100+ years after the start date. I never said their role was defensive, they were involved in wars away from their homelands helping their allies on the continent they didn't have to fight they chose to, thats a pretty agressive attitude in my eyes.

Maybe they're mentioned first by caeser but archeology no doubt attests to their presence long before that and IIRC the faction leader is mentioned in Goidelic legend (and supported by archeology) as conquering all of the south west of britain around the start date.