View Full Version : Faction List for EB2?
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.
Interesting. Source?
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.
Source for the Goidelic legend?
And certainly archaeology will attest to the presence of humans on the Isles. I'm contesting that they were a significant power at the time the game starts. Hell, even 100s of years later.
ziegenpeter
10-28-2009, 09:37
Hey lobf, it seems that many members of the .org consider it much more polite if your request for a source is a longer sentence.
Apázlinemjó
10-28-2009, 09:57
And certainly archaeology will attest to the presence of humans on the Isles. I'm contesting that they were a significant power at the time the game starts. Hell, even 100s of years later.
Source?
Interesting. Source?
A quick look gives:
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 3.9 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_3#9) Where Caeser mentions Britons joining the Veneti in their fight against him.
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.20 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_4#20) Mentions Caeser's reason for invading Britain, ie they were providing assistance to the Gauls.
Now i know this is all long after the start date but i imagine archeology testifies to similar things a lot further back in time. I'm no archeologist so i wouldn't know what sources were used but EB has team members who are so I'm willing to trust their decision in this matter.
Source for the Goidelic legend?
You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.
You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.
I think this one of those bits of EB for which the sources could not be found. A lot of the team's early Celtic material hasn't been properly referenced, so the team decided to redo most or all Celtic material for EB2.
Ah ok scratch off that one then.
oudysseos
10-29-2009, 21:18
If ye are really that interested in lPRIA Britain, there are a couple of books you need to have a look at.
Iron Age Communities in Britain and Ireland, Barry Cunliffe. The bible.
An Imperial Possession, Mattingly. Excellent.
The Britons, Snyder. Very Good.
The Iron Age in Northern Britain, Harding
Prehistoric Britain, Darvill
Ancient Britain, Dyer
The Forts of Celtic Britain, Osprey
I have to say that the suggestion that 3rd BCE Britain is not prima facie worthy of at least one faction is totally ludicrous. Do some reading.
Even as early as 272 BCE, Graeco-Roman influence was becoming profound in Continental Celtic/Gallic societies. In Britain we have the chance to imagine a society with much less cultural adulteration. Also, the archaeological record is tremendously rich. Cissbury, Maiden Castle and Danebury are some of the largest multivalate hill forts in Europe. Hengtisbury Head was one of the busiest ports. Some of the best overall examples of Celtic craftwork, shields, helmets, swords and chariots come from Britain.
The problem of course, is that the historical record does not begin until much later, so that we do not have a narrative to rely on for our story: but does that mean that we should abandon these people to the dustbin of history? In EB we are more inclined to take up the challenge and attempt to speak for history's silent people. All it takes is a little creativity.
Re: the name. I won't tell you what we are going to do about that yet. 'Casse' is of course a guess, as we don't even have numismatic evidence for the period, but it is a very good guess nonetheless. The Cassi are one of the tribes mentioned by Caesar, who is basically our earliest textual source, and in addition 'Cassi' is an element in many other kinds of names. But there are some other possibilities. Anyone know what they might be?
Hey lobf, it seems that many members of the .org consider it much more polite if your request for a source is a longer sentence.
If you make a claim, be prepared to cite your evidence. I shouldn't need to charm you into having a proper discussion.
Source?
I didn't make a positive existential claim. I can't be asked to cite evidence to support that something didn't happen.
You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.
New here, are ye? :)
What do you mean you got it from the biography of one of the Casse leaders? You mean you heard it was from the biography of one of the Casse leaders?
A quick look gives:
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 3.9 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_3#9) Where Caeser mentions Britons joining the Veneti in their fight against him.
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.20 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_4#20) Mentions Caeser's reason for invading Britain, ie they were providing assistance to the Gauls.
I understand where you're going with this. Yes, they provided material assistance to the Gauls. On the other hand, Poland provides (or provided) material assistance to the US in Iraq. That doesn't make them a major world power. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.
Now i know this is all long after the start date but i imagine archeology testifies to similar things a lot further back in time. I'm no archeologist so i wouldn't know what sources were used but EB has team members who are so I'm willing to trust their decision in this matter.
It would just be nice if someone would come out and show us whatever evidence they have.
If ye are really that interested in lPRIA Britain, there are a couple of books you need to have a look at.
Iron Age Communities in Britain and Ireland, Barry Cunliffe. The bible.
An Imperial Possession, Mattingly. Excellent.
The Britons, Snyder. Very Good.
The Iron Age in Northern Britain, Harding
Prehistoric Britain, Darvill
Ancient Britain, Dyer
The Forts of Celtic Britain, Osprey
I have to say that the suggestion that 3rd BCE Britain is not prima facie worthy of at least one faction is totally ludicrous. Do some reading.
I would love to. I've been asking for something to look at for ages. That era and that part of the world fascinates me, I look forward to reading those.
Would you mind summarizing some of the main rationales behind their inclusion for me?
Even as early as 272 BCE, Graeco-Roman influence was becoming profound in Continental Celtic/Gallic societies. In Britain we have the chance to imagine a society with much less cultural adulteration. Also, the archaeological record is tremendously rich. Cissbury, Maiden Castle and Danebury are some of the largest multivalate hill forts in Europe. Hengtisbury Head was one of the busiest ports. Some of the best overall examples of Celtic craftwork, shields, helmets, swords and chariots come from Britain.
From what era?
The problem of course, is that the historical record does not begin until much later, so that we do not have a narrative to rely on for our story: but does that mean that we should abandon these people to the dustbin of history? In EB we are more inclined to take up the challenge and attempt to speak for history's silent people. All it takes is a little creativity.
I guess I'm worried that a very conjectured interpretation of these people will make it into the final product and be taken as gospel by the general public. I'd just like to understand what you are basing your recreation off of.
Re: the name. I won't tell you what we are going to do about that yet. 'Casse' is of course a guess, as we don't even have numismatic evidence for the period, but it is a very good guess nonetheless. The Cassi are one of the tribes mentioned by Caesar, who is basically our earliest textual source, and in addition 'Cassi' is an element in many other kinds of names. But there are some other possibilities. Anyone know what they might be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cassi
I'm at work, BTW, so this is kind of a rushed reply.
Lobf, it's great see you back on form. We've missed you!
However, while I do enjoy your "skipping record" style of conversation, perhaps its time to move onto another subject. We have told you and we will always tell you, "We do not have full records of all evidence that was bought forward during the early period of EBI (and throughout development there have been gaps). We cannot provide you with the evidence you so desperately crave at the moment. We are researching all factions and areas of our mod over again, and collating this information in a central depository so that we can check it in the future. We may or may not release this resource at some future date. We cannot talk about what we have planned for the Casse, or the British Isles in general, as we have not reached a point where we have the development at a level necessary to preview this stuff.
Your constant and consistent (I would say a very large majority of your posts on our two forums here is on the subject of the Casse) is unnecessary at this point (if it was at any point). Your hijacking of threads so that they are solely about this subject, your dominance in them, and your rather ungentlemanly behaviour (which you admit to) is frustrating and long overdue an end.
EBII is more than just a one-horse mod, and I think you've beaten this dead horse topic enough. If the Casse come up again, and some "dodgy" evidence is brought forward by fan, feel free to link them to my post and let them know that all evidence in EBII is being researched again. Then move on and [citation needed] our other factions, as they sorely need your attention!
Foot
Lobf, it's great see you back on form. We've missed you!
However, while I do enjoy your "skipping record" style of conversation, perhaps its time to move onto another subject. We have told you and we will always tell you, "We do not have full records of all evidence that was bought forward during the early period of EBI (and throughout development there have been gaps). We cannot provide you with the evidence you so desperately crave at the moment. We are researching all factions and areas of our mod over again, and collating this information in a central depository so that we can check it in the future. We may or may not release this resource at some future date. We cannot talk about what we have planned for the Casse, or the British Isles in general, as we have not reached a point where we have the development at a level necessary to preview this stuff.
Your constant and consistent (I would say a very large majority of your posts on our two forums here is on the subject of the Casse) is unnecessary at this point (if it was at any point). Your hijacking of threads so that they are solely about this subject, your dominance in them, and your rather ungentlemanly behaviour (which you admit to) is frustrating and long overdue an end.
EBII is more than just a one-horse mod, and I think you've beaten this dead horse topic enough. If the Casse come up again, and some "dodgy" evidence is brought forward by fan, feel free to link them to my post and let them know that all evidence in EBII is being researched again. Then move on and [citation needed] our other factions, as they sorely need your attention!
Foot
Thanks Foot!
However, I think you've misunderstood me. I understand the old Casse stuff is either missing or non-existent. I'm not asking for that. I know that the faction is to be included in the next iteration of your wonderful mod, and I'm wondering, since we can ignore much of the older evidence, what it is you will be using to rebuild that culture?
I also know that there's so much more to EB than the European tribes. I'm just not so enamored with most of the rest of the world at that time as I am with the Europeans. Like the founders of this project, I long to see accurate, reasonable interpretations of the lives of these people. This isn't just a matter of challenging shaky assertions, but I want to know and learn about them, and I'd like to look at the same sources you do.
I know I'm a dick. Maybe it's my line of work (I work in the film business... nobody's got any patience for nonsense.) and I'm sorry that I bring some of that impatience or aggression to the forums. I just really like the barbarians, and I really like to talk about them. And I really like to argue. And I really don't like when people make assertions based on rumor or hearsay. (as happened in this very topic with the "goidelic legend")
Anyways, I'm trying to move on. Thanks for tolerating me (barely) and I look forward to seeing the new material you bring to the table in the future.
And I really don't like when people make assertions based on rumor or hearsay. (as happened in this very topic with the "goidelic legend") A bit harsh, it was based on what I read in the game, i don't have the time to check every last piece of information so i assumed the EB team, who spent a lot of time and effort making the mod, were more informed than me in this matter and included it for a good reason.
Anyway just my final 2cents, it has been a intersting discussion:2thumbsup:.
Julianus
10-30-2009, 02:24
Sometimes, I get tired of conquering the world and all...maybe play as a weak but famous faction struggling for its bare existence among surrounding super powers is interesting too, at least for a change.
To be honest, I always want to play as a single Greek city states, such as Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc.
For example I wish we could get Corinth as a faction starting as Macedonian protectorate...don't know if EB have some plan of province campaign.
Bloody Sacha
10-30-2009, 04:40
I am very much looking forward to a Boii faction which I believe will serve as the axle of Europe, well situated in central Europe with obvious objectives towards the Helvetii and northern Italy they will be a great disabling faction forcing every nation around them to expand more appropriately (or over dead Boii bodies) while more realistically opening up the Celtic lay lines to the eastern Celtic world Tylis and Galatia.
Id love to see a Galatian faction but I can't think of a way to tie their politics to their relatives in Tolosa without flat out incorporating Tolosa into the Galatian faction which would obviously be unhistorical. Either way I suspect that without such a function, the Galatians wouldn't be considered "worldly" enough to be implemented. In a recent game as the Aedui I was one province away from smashing the Arverni and completing my last game objective when suddenly the Arverni acquired Galatia and two full stack armies. Which while hilarious and better then nothing would still be disappointing in EB2. Perhaps this presumably scripted event could occur for the Galatians if a non-Celtic faction captures Tolosa. (If no one has any idea what I’m talking about I can go into more detail about the Volcae Tectosages of Tolosa and their correspondence with the Volcae Tectosages in Galatia)
Other factions id like to see but almost certainly won’t be put in the game
Cimbri
Brigantes
Scordisci
Belloavaci
Veneti
Aravaci
I know next to nothing of the civilizations outside the Celtic nations.
oudysseos
10-30-2009, 14:45
Sacha, you just might be pleasantly surprised! (Is he lying? Only Foot knows! Bwahahaha).
Look, Lobf, I think that you miss the point sometimes. We will certainly provide as comprehensive a historical justification for the British faction* as we can when we are ready to do so, but it is not the case that the original framers of the Casse were mistaken or remiss or crazy: an interpretive direction was taken, one that was well grounded in the historical and archaeological record, and now with the expanded opportunities of the new engine, a slightly different direction is likely to be the result, just as well grounded in exactly the same historical and archaeological record. Try to get this, Lobf: both versions are equally "right" or "wrong" - in fact, that kind of characterization (right, wrong, true, false) is in itself inappropriate: we are interpreting, as best we can, the physical remains of an illiterate culture to fit the limits of the game engine that we have chosen. There are often many equally legitimate ways to interpret the evidence that we have, but ultimately we have to make some choices.
What I am trying to say is that with a faction like the Casse, the best that anyone can ever do is say, "This is how it could have been". Sometimes there are several ways that it could have been and we can only pick one of them. What we can't ever do is say, "This is how it really was", 'cos nobody knows that, even for many of the better documented Greek and Roman factions.
*Not giving anything away here: 'Casse', as I have said, is a very valid choice as a name for this faction, but it is no secret that there are some other possibilities. This is one of those 'multiple ways it could have been' scenarios: we can only give the faction one name even though there are several choices.
Visarion
11-01-2009, 17:34
what do you think about Nanda Empire in India? :idea2:
Kara Mustafa
11-01-2009, 17:45
what do you think about Nanda Empire in India? :idea2:
Well EB 2 features only the north-western part of India so no Indian factions I guess...
what do you think about Nanda Empire in India? :idea2:
Kind of hard since the Nanda empire had been gone for almost 50 years by EB's start date.
If there was a Indian faction it would be the Maurya Empire and that would require the map to be extended much further east, given the limited number of provinces available it isn't likely to happen.
I hope some more Black Sea factions make it in, like maybe Thrace, Colchis (ancient Georgian kingdom) and the Bosporan kingdom. Altough any coastal faction would be nice. :yes:
btw heres a picture of the world in 300 bc, might give you guys a picture of what possible factions might be in.
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_300bc.jpg
WinsingtonIII
11-02-2009, 02:43
I hope some more Black Sea factions make it in, like maybe Thrace, Colchis (ancient Georgian kingdom) and the Bosporan kingdom. Altough any coastal faction would be nice. :yes:
I get the feeling that the Bosporan kingdom might be in. Don't read into that too much, I have absolutely zero access to information about this, I just have a weird hunch about them being in, more so than about any other possible factions.
Maybe it's just my wishful thinking, as I think they would be really fun. Interesting starting position, interesting mix of Greek hoplitai and Skythian troops. I think they would be quite fun.
Visarion
11-02-2009, 10:19
what about a Finno-Ugric faction? :D
I hope some more Black Sea factions make it in, like maybe Thrace, Colchis (ancient Georgian kingdom) and the Bosporan kingdom. Altough any coastal faction would be nice. :yes:
btw heres a picture of the world in 300 bc, might give you guys a picture of what possible factions might be in.
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_300bc.jpg
Well, Colhhis was a Roman protectorate/province then. Another Georgian Kingdom -Kartli (Caucasian Iberia) would be a good choice for a new faction. It was independent, rival to Armenia and ally to Selevkids.
Bosporan Kingdom as a new faction would be fantastic too!
ziegenpeter
11-02-2009, 10:59
Colchis was a roman protectorate in 300 or 272 bc?
If I was somebody else I'd probably just ask "Source?" but even with all my respect and kindness I doubt it.
Well, Colhhis was a Roman protectorate/province then.
Was not. It was a land of many princes without any common king. It had recently been attacked by Hayasdan, and was currently under the protection of the Iberian king.
Foot
btw heres a picture of the world in 300 bc, might give you guys a picture of what possible factions might be in.
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_300bc.jpg
Well, I'd like to know why the Arctic Marine Mammal Hunters aren't a faction. That's just unacceptable.
The General
11-02-2009, 12:56
what about a Finno-Ugric faction? :D
Not gonna happen I'm afraid. There just isn't all that much information available about the early Finno-Ugric culture or population, and even less so about supposed early Finnish tribes/tribal kingdoms (like Kvenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvenland)).
However, I'd hope there'd be one unit to represent the Finno-Ugrics, in EBI there's four Baltic units but no Finno-Ugrians, tsch! It'd be hilarious to have some spear/axe-woodsman unit "Otsonpojat" or something. :laugh4:
Was not. It was a land of many princes without any common king. It had recently been attacked by Hayasdan, and was currently under the protection of the Iberian king.
Foot
Right you are, my mistake. Colkhis became province of Rome later.
Did not notice that we talk about 300 bc
Phalanx300
11-02-2009, 13:49
I wonder about the Batavians, they were a power in the region and according to the Romans one hell of a warrior. And seeing that they came form the Chatti that isn't that weird. I've heard in this program that when they went to war Batavians would dye their hair red and the Chatti customs of having to kill someone to become a man also still applied for them. They were known to cross rivers in full equipment with their entire force often suprising the enemy and winning the battle. There's also a helmet design which they used which is now used by the Germanic Bodyguard in EB1.
They destroyed a couple of Rome's legions and if it wasn't for a Batavian traitor they might not have been forced to surrender.
Would be great as a faction, small but powerfull, perhaps not good enough to be a faction but definately deserving for an unit like the Chatti, Cherusci, Nervii who all were not your ordinary Germanic soldiers but fought or were armed somewhat different.
ziegenpeter
11-02-2009, 16:07
Well, although I'm a huge fan of germanic culture, I doubt that there will be more than one germanic faction in EB. All we know about them is from a time much later than 272bc. So the swebozez are already a tiny little bit speculative and it would be hard to make a new germanic faction without simply cloning the Sweboz.
Phalanx300
11-02-2009, 22:08
Well, although I'm a huge fan of germanic culture, I doubt that there will be more than one germanic faction in EB. All we know about them is from a time much later than 272bc. So the swebozez are already a tiny little bit speculative and it would be hard to make a new germanic faction without simply cloning the Sweboz.
Well Adui and Arverni springs to mind as well as basicly all Hellenic factions, similarity doesn't decide the faction. I'm pretty sure that we will see another faction in the area, perhaps an Belgic faction or the Lugii perhaps, I hope for another Germanic faction but we'll have to see for now.
moonburn
11-03-2009, 04:45
the arevaci will most certainly make it to the rooster considering their importance in the iberian peninsula and will make for a more accurate political geo strategical reality of this time period :book:
ThePianist
11-03-2009, 08:33
Found this on Twcenter.net in the forum for the Ortus Romani submod of EB2:
The Jewish kingdom is rather difficult as it would have to be an emerging faction, which I am trying to avoid, and even as one would swiftly be swallowed by the seleucids or Ptolomatics as per game mechanics.
In that case, could you skip the Jewish kingdom in the overall campaign map,
but make a provincial campaign (a special map) in which the player can play as the Jewish kingdom?
XGM couldn't add all the factions on their overall campaign map, but they wanted the players to be able to play some extra factions, so in addition to the overall campaign map, they have 5 provincial campaign maps (Galatians, Pergamum, Chersonesus, Syracuse, Epirus). These provincial campaign maps are actually as big as the overall map, but the player can only play as one faction, the faction for which the provincial campaign was made for.
So, EB could skip over the ancient Israel faction for the overall campaign map (they could be included in Seleukia, or they could be a rebel province to be contested between the Arche Seleukid and the Ptolemaioi).
However, EB could have a provincial campaign, which is a specially designed campaign map (as big as the overall campaign), where the player can play as a special faction. So for ancient Israel, the start date could be in the year of 166BC, in the middle of the Makabim Revolt.
Few modification would be necessary to the map, except perhaps canceling a few towns from the periphery (like Britain, or the steppes), and adding a few towns in the Levant area (Jerusalem, Samaria, Hebron, Ashkelon, Gaza).
The player would start with perhaps a stack.
And something like 3 or 4 stacks of Seleucids are marching down the coast, in the first turn.
It's just really wonderful to be able to build shrines to Yahweh.
Researching the appearance of the Israelite units of that era shouldn't be very hard at all, there must be entire books available, easily found by asking the Jewish community.
And for every faction that doesn't make the overall campaign, the EB team could make a provincial campaign where the only playable faction is that special faction, like how XGM did it. A peripheral faction (most likely Britain, or Bactria) can be taken away in each of these cases, so that the extra faction can have a slot.
Also, for a faction like the Galatians, maybe the map can be changed, to extend from the Alps to the Levant. That way more towns can be included.
ThePianist
11-03-2009, 08:34
In fact, these provincial campaigns could be released as continual patches (expansions), to keep up the interest in EB.
Phalanx300
11-03-2009, 09:13
A bad idea, I rather play world maps with the total limit of factions, if anything it will set people off since EB1 is managing just fine with the word map.
ziegenpeter
11-03-2009, 09:26
Well Adui and Arverni springs to mind as well as basicly all Hellenic factions, similarity doesn't decide the faction.
That's why there is a semantic difference between "being cloned" and "being similar".
In fact, these provincial campaigns could be released as continual patches (expansions), to keep up the interest in EB.
I think 30 awesome factions will be enough to keep me interested. But fan mini-mod ahoy.
Phalanx300
11-03-2009, 11:50
That's why there is a semantic difference between "being cloned" and "being similar".
Well if we look at the Cherusci and the Chatti their society and warriors were also different. Similar as comparing Spartan and Syracusian Hoplites in EB.
In fact, these provincial campaigns could be released as continual patches (expansions), to keep up the interest in EB.
We have enough work to do as it is, without creating new factions, new units and new campaigns. We hope that the glorious depth and breadth of EBII will be enough to sate most people who play.
Foot
There are tens of factions more worthy to be included than the Maccabean state.
ziegenpeter
11-03-2009, 18:14
Well if we look at the Cherusci and the Chatti their society and warriors were also different. Similar as comparing Spartan and Syracusian Hoplites in EB.
Well but Cherusci and Chatti are already in the Sweboz unit roster and cutting them would leve a hole in the already small roster.
Plus, we have no records about different germanic tribes in 272bc but even for later times, I wouldn't know how to tell them apart by anything else but their name and location. If you have literature about this subject, I'd be greatful if you posted it.
WinsingtonIII
11-03-2009, 19:00
I don't think it makes sense to give a faction slot to the Maccabean Kingdom. As has been stated on the EB1 forums many a time, it doesn't make sense from a gameplay or historical perspective. In terms of gameplay, they would almost certainly be crushed by the AS or Ptolies within the first 10 years, meaning that unless the player is playing them (or the AS or Ptolies), you're never going to even see them. Historically, a Maccabean Kingdom would be content with controlling the Jewish homelands, and would certainly not have any interest in building a huge empire, which is what would happen if they were controlled by the player. They are best represented by strong rebels and an especially rebellious population (which will be much better represented in EB2 due to the "people" buildings and the inclusion of more religious aspects).
-Praetor-
11-03-2009, 19:49
There's absolutely no way we are going to have a Jewish faction in EBII.
This was announced (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290) in 2007 already.
Deal with it.
Owen Glyndwr
11-03-2009, 22:22
And yet there will still be hundreds of "Will there be a Jewish faction" threads between now and EBII's release date.
WinsingtonIII
11-04-2009, 04:48
There's absolutely no way we are going to have a Jewish faction in EBII.
This was announced (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290) in 2007 already.
Deal with it.
If this was in response to my post, I hope you understand that I was agreeing with you and trying to explain the reasoning behind it... I hope I wasn't misunderstood.
What about Meroe? I found EB I left little to do in NE Africa. Meroe was an established and important kingdom at the time of the beginning of the mod and continued to be well into the Roman period. Meroitic armies invaded Roman Egypt and Roman armies struck back into Meroe. Furthermore, Meroe was an important trade area and something of an intermediary between the Mediterranean world and the African interior. I'd suggest Aksum/Axum, too, but that empire arose too late to qualify.
The land of Kush/Meroe/Nubia was known from millenia to produce excellent archers and brave, if ill equipped, infantry and cavalry. There are certainly good units to be made. Furthermore, both Romans and Kushites fought the Blemmyes, likely the ancestors of the modern Beja and inhabitants of the arid, gold rich Red Sea hills straddling the modern borders of Egypt and Sudan. Blemmye mercenaries could be new unites, as could Noba mercenaries in the far south.
The map could therefore include a few new provinces. One for the Blemmyes, and a few in Kush/Nubia, perhaps with borders at the cataracts of the Nile.
It doesn't make sense to me to include two nomadic, Iranian factions (Saka Rauka and Sarmatians) which did not have centralized political control, yet not include a long-lasting, economically and geopolitically important centralized state that fits within the geography and time frame of the mod. There is plenty enough information out there on the Meroitic period to create a faction, and I'd be happy to contribute information or at least recommend sources to check out (like archaeologist Derek Welsby's books). I'm glad to see the the Numidians included, I just hope the Meroites will be as well!
WinsingtonIII
11-04-2009, 06:42
The map could therefore include a few new provinces. One for the Blemmyes, and a few in Kush/Nubia, perhaps with borders at the cataracts of the Nile.
I think one of the problems with including Meroe is at least partially that it is on the very edge of the map. M2TW has the same province limit as RTW, so I sort of doubt that the EB team is going to remove 5 or 6 provinces from other parts of the map to put them all in one place at the very bottom of the map where most factions will never reach them.
A Very Super Market
11-04-2009, 06:42
Not enough culture slots.
Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.
Phalanx300
11-04-2009, 12:34
Well but Cherusci and Chatti are already in the Sweboz unit roster and cutting them would leve a hole in the already small roster.
Plus, we have no records about different germanic tribes in 272bc but even for later times, I wouldn't know how to tell them apart by anything else but their name and location. If you have literature about this subject, I'd be greatful if you posted it.
They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.
Their traditions, the Chatti would remove the hair in the face once they made their first kill and would remove and iron ring around their neck. The Cherusci were known for their swords(but I think this still means the spear is the main weapon especially if they used oversized spears in the first rank) and close shield walls.
Not enough culture slots.
Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.
No, we don't go cutting provinces somewhere else because we feel like want to include a new faction. otherwise we would go for india over Meroe. Wingsington III has it right, and so do you. There are many reasons that Meroe isn't included.
Foot
-Praetor-
11-04-2009, 14:25
If this was in response to my post, I hope you understand that I was agreeing with you and trying to explain the reasoning behind it... I hope I wasn't misunderstood.
No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.
There are like ten factions that we would prefer to incluide before the Maccabeans: the Cimbrians for instance, that ravaged through half of Europe, or the Yuezhi that flared the far east. But they are not making in because they appear too far from our starting year, even though they did shape this part of the world significantly.
The Maccabean kingdom didn't even do that.
ziegenpeter
11-04-2009, 15:43
They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.
I'm pretty sure, they are enabled by the native MIC.
No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.
As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?
WinsingtonIII
11-04-2009, 16:15
Not enough culture slots.
Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.
Holding history over gameplay isn't the same as throwing gameplay out the window, AVSM. I think it would be somewhat against EB's policy of accurately and equally representing as many factions on the map as possible to take multiple provinces away from these factions and place them on the very edge of the map where they only benefit one faction, whose lands extend off the map anyways, and cannot be represented accurately due to this fact.
And yes, culture slots were another consideration, as Foot said, we were both right, I'm merely clarifying that I wasn't expecting anyone to put gameplay above history, but sometimes it has to be considered in order to preserve the historical accuracy of other factions.
No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.
Exactly, I'm in full agreement with you there. I was merely making sure I didn't get on the bad-list as one of the lobbyists...
As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?
Because we know it didn't exist in 272BC.:inquisitive:
As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?
Because it didn't exist at all in 272 BC? Jerusalem was at that point controlled by the Ptolemeans. Furthermore, although with hindsight it was very important from a religious perspective, at the time the Maccabean revolt was little more than a local uprising against Seleucid rule. They certainly weren't an expansionist faction, so why give a faction slot to them if they could just as well be simulated by independents?
ziegenpeter
11-04-2009, 17:59
OOOPS! I totally confused the Maccabean kingdom with Meroe... Mea culpa.
Of course a jewish faction would be inapropriated.
OOOPS! I totally confused the Maccabean kingdom with Meroe... Mea culpa.
Of course a jewish faction would be inapropriated.
Reasons why no Meroe (but please do try searching, as we cannot spend all our time answering the same questions over and over and over again).
1. No Culture Slot - Meroe are an Ethiopian faction, but they would look Arabian.
2. No Provinces - Most of Meroe and its expansion would be off the map. Edge factions are dodgy to begin with.
There are others, but they are not really necessary. The above is enough to express why Meroe aren't in EBII. Comparing the viability of Meroe to that of the Casse and the Sweboz is simplistic.
Foot
athanaric
11-04-2009, 23:56
They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.
For Swêboz, all Germanic units are recruitable from the factional MIC only.
I don't see Cherusci or Chatti in. They are too close to the Swêboz and general knowledge is kinda sketchy anyway. Well, Chatti perhaps. But I would much rather bet on a Celtic faction.
ziegenpeter
11-05-2009, 00:07
Reasons why no Meroe (but please do try searching, as we cannot spend all our time answering the same questions over and over and over again).
1. No Culture Slot - Meroe are an Ethiopian faction, but they would look Arabian.
2. No Provinces - Most of Meroe and its expansion would be off the map. Edge factions are dodgy to begin with.
There are others, but they are not really necessary. The above is enough to express why Meroe aren't in EBII. Comparing the viability of Meroe to that of the Casse and the Sweboz is simplistic.
Foot
Gotcha. I wasnt arguing FOR Meroe, because I dont care about them that much. I was just generally questioning, but I was also generally confused, so lets drop this :dizzy2:
Athanaric, I do agree with you. Thats why I like to have a moding team with the same manner of working as the eb team, working on a mod about a time when germanic tribes were more distinguishable. (Migration period, for example).
Apázlinemjó
11-05-2009, 01:08
I hope an other faction (like Cyrene) will be included near to the Ptolemaic dynasty to bother them, because in most campaigns they don't really have enough playing mates and they become a superpower in the game in no time. :dizzy2:
Fair enough, I'm not a mod developer, just a player. Still, Kush was more enduring than the Sabaea (itself something of a , and under Meroe they were more centralized than numerous other already included factions. That, AND most Kushite territory would in-fact be on the map, assuming it's the same boundaries as EB I. It'd be fair to say, furthermore, that we know Kush/Nubia better archaeologically and historically than we do NE Europe at this time, which is very well represented in terms of provinces.
Don't mean to be a thorn in your guys' side, also didn't realize there were more considerations than simply being on the map and being important at the time of the scenario start. I just thought the proposition was a fairly decent one. *swallows inordinate pride* Anyway, I'll let it rest and will still play the game regardless. Actually, I'm rather looking forward to it! :)
...would there be any chance of Nubian archers as mercenaries, at least...? :p
Skullheadhq
11-05-2009, 18:39
I think there are some nubian units as regionals in EBI, correct me if I'm wrong, I dont usually expand that far south.
WinsingtonIII
11-05-2009, 20:53
...would there be any chance of Nubian archers as mercenaries, at least...? :p
EB1 contains Ethiopian Swordsmen, Ethiopian Light Spearmen, Ethiopian Archers, and Ethiopian Medium Cavalry as regionals and at least some of them are mercenaries, so I'm assuming we will see these units in EB2 as well. I realize that technically these aren't Nubian units per se (who would have been located more in modern day Sudan, not Ethiopia), but they are fairly similar to the troops that would have been fielded by the Nubians, so you will probably be able to field Ethiopian Archers and maybe just roleplay that they are Nubians. You may even be able to change their name so that in your games they are called Nubian Archers (although I don't know what the native tongue name would be).
EB1 contains Ethiopian Swordsmen, Ethiopian Light Spearmen, Ethiopian Archers, and Ethiopian Medium Cavalry as regionals and at least some of them are mercenaries, so I'm assuming we will see these units in EB2 as well. I realize that technically these aren't Nubian units per se (who would have been located more in modern day Sudan, not Ethiopia), but they are fairly similar to the troops that would have been fielded by the Nubians, so you will probably be able to field Ethiopian Archers and maybe just roleplay that they are Nubians. You may even be able to change their name so that in your games they are called Nubian Archers (although I don't know what the native tongue name would be).
"The word 'Libya' means Africa, and so the majority of Africans came to be known as 'Libyans' to the Greeks. The major distinction that the Greeks made was when it came to colour. They generally referred to all negroid African populations as 'Ethiopians' and all others as 'Libyans'."
The Ethiopian units cover all the negroid African units in EBI, and will do so in EBII. I believe that, even still, there are some specific Nubian units that were open as regionals and particularly for Saba. I might be wrong.
Foot
Saba's doesn't get unique ethiopian/nubian troops. While they were certainly used by them, especially at latter times, they wouldn't look much different from other nubians. So they won't have unique troops, but they would have easier acces to them. But that's mostly because of their proximity.
WinsingtonIII
11-06-2009, 04:48
"The word 'Libya' means Africa, and so the majority of Africans came to be known as 'Libyans' to the Greeks. The major distinction that the Greeks made was when it came to colour. They generally referred to all negroid African populations as 'Ethiopians' and all others as 'Libyans'."
The Ethiopian units cover all the negroid African units in EBI, and will do so in EBII. I believe that, even still, there are some specific Nubian units that were open as regionals and particularly for Saba. I might be wrong.
Foot
Ah I see, that makes sense, I was merely going by the unit description for the Ethiopian units where it says this:
"Historically, ancient Ethiopia (encompassing modern day Eritrea and northern Ethiopia) was at this time made up of many smaller kingdoms that waged wars against each other, but also against any foreign invaders, like the Nubians, Hellenes and Sabaeans."
I took that to mean that these units were examples of troops fielded by the smaller Ethiopian kingdoms and that the Nubians would have used different troops. However it makes more sense that these are just general troops that account for both.
I searched both in-game, in the recruitment viewer, and on the EB webpage faction list, and there do not appear to be any specific Nubian units, even for Saba. Of course, Moros just mentioned that above me, but I searched before he posted that.
burn_again
11-06-2009, 05:56
I searched both in-game, in the recruitment viewer, and on the EB webpage faction list, and there do not appear to be any specific Nubian units, even for Saba.
Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=african%20infantry%20nubian%20spearmen&text=&ownership=any&class=any&category=any
WinsingtonIII
11-06-2009, 20:32
Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=african%20infantry%20nubian%20spearmen&text=&ownership=any&class=any&category=any
Interesting, I guess I just missed that one somehow.
Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=african%20infantry%20nubian%20spearmen&text=&ownership=any&class=any&category=any
Note that I was talking about EBII, and that I'm not talking about a nubian unit, but a unique nubian for the Sabaeans. The same is true for ethiopian units. Habashite mercenaries and troops were used in arabia, but there's no reason to believe they were unique in anyway, unlike special regiments of bedouins.
Visarion
11-12-2009, 19:26
What about the Odrysian kingdom, a union of Thracian tribes that endured between the 5th century BC and the 3rd century BC. Where was I thinking... that's before the timeline... my mistake!
Is the faction list panning out "by the numbers"? There was an earlier posy about the likely factions being linked to units in EB1 9yes I know the unit roster has been revamped, but it was a guide to the areas EB team members felt worthy of development and representation).
We have added Pergamum, Numidia and now Bosphorans. The latter two were foreshadowed by having significant units or suites of units in EB1 (just missing the cut because of the faction limit).
That criterion might get Indian and Ethiopian factions in, but its been explained that the culture limit sinks this:no:.
Spots that have a suite of units almost amounting to a faction roster: Iran (as opposed to those Turanian Parthians) Thrace (including Gallo-Thrace), Iberia and Galatia. I guess Galatians are out, becuase they were not politically active in the EB era and turn up as mercs in the right faction rosters. There's a slim case for a couple of Iberian factions and/or Odrysians, and maybe a "persian successor" state.
Spots that have iconic factional units: Taras, Syracuse, Massillia, Bastarnae, Boii, Alpine Gauls. The last 3 have more "playability" in some ways, because they might be miore than one province and they might not be hemmed in on all sides by hostile giants. The possibility of another midnight isles faction looms: we know they were there, jusy nmot exactly who they were.
I only wish for a fish so juicy sweet, and a Mauryan chariot BG. What i'll get is a pretty good faction list
I guess Galatians are out, becuase they were not politically active in the EB era
I don't think thats quite correct, infact i think that in EB's period is only a few years away from the first days that the Gauls stepped on land of Galatia, and by this time I think they were allied with the Bithynians and also had some conflicts with the Seleukids.
So I don't think they should be dismissed now as of now.
Bloody Sacha
11-13-2009, 02:44
I don't think thats quite correct, infact i think that in EB's period is only a few years away from the first days that the Gauls stepped on land of Galatia, and by this time I think they were allied with the Bithynians and also had some conflicts with the Seleukids.
So I don't think they should be dismissed now as of now.
You are absolutely correct. The Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Volcae Tectosages led by Leonorius and Loutorius land in Anatolia in 278BC. Imported by Nicomedes I of Bithynia fallowing their successful siege of Byzantion and the hellespont in general (many of these land gains may have been reversed by Antigonas Gonatas.) Though Leonorius and Loutorius fall from the pages of history during this time the Celts pillage Anatolia prompting Antiochus I "The Savior" to engage them in battle. Where the Galatai are defeated. Though I'm not familiar with the peace terms it's clear that they where made before 274 as Antiochus' attentions immediately shifted to Ptolemy. Conversely its possible that the radical successes of Ptolemy negated the affects of Galatia’s peace terms with the Seleucids.
Whatever the case is Galatia is firmly established as a political entity as of 272 BC. With clear world objectives in and out of Asia. The remaining questions are
1 Byzantion may very possibly still be a tribute paying state of Leonorius and Loutorius’ Galatians. Whether this means that they are a type 3 government or just flat out paid a large sum of cash I can not verify.
2. What is the exact manner of the relationship between the Volcae Tectosages, dominant shareholders of the Galatian tetrarchy and their brethren in Tolosa.
3. How close politically are the Galatians to Comontorios of Tylis and Bathanatos of the Scordisci.
EDIT::
If anyone has answers to the questions I’ve posed or otherwise objects id like to know. There seem to be a few unfortunate blank spaces, particularly regarding the fates of Leonorius and Loutorius.
Has anyone suggested the Bastarnae? The Celtic-German-Thracian mix would make for an interesting unit roster plus it would help with balancing out the Sweboz expansion in the area. If people are looking for a faction to help fill the gap in Eastern Europe the Bastarnae would probably make a suitable choice.
Phalanx300
11-22-2009, 23:11
An far eastern Germanic faction would be great, though I hope we will see more factions in Germania because just 1 faction there doesn't do the area justice.
An far eastern Germanic faction would be great, though I hope we will see more factions in Germania because just 1 faction there doesn't do the area justice.
Not only does it not do it justice but it maked the Gallic campaigns almost unplayable (I may just be a bad player:yes:) a faction is definatly needed to balance out the Northern Europe play of power. Of course the danger is that by including another German faction the Sweboz campaign simply mirrors the Aedui/Averni campaign. Really looking forward to the possibility of there being another "barbarian" faction!
Phalanx300
11-22-2009, 23:59
Not only does it not do it justice but it maked the Gallic campaigns almost unplayable (I may just be a bad player:yes:) a faction is definatly needed to balance out the Northern Europe play of power. Of course the danger is that by including another German faction the Sweboz campaign simply mirrors the Aedui/Averni campaign. Really looking forward to the possibility of there being another "barbarian" faction!
Well I think its an given that the Belgae or an part of the Belgae will be in. And most likely there will be some at least some other like Celt-Iberians, Boii and another Germanic faction.
I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)
eddy_purpus
11-23-2009, 01:40
I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)
who are dos?
:P:dizzy2:
Mongols?
Really :D
tehyre gonna be in EB2 XD?
HunGeneral
11-23-2009, 02:44
I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)
Do you mean the early Huns?
I suspect this is a joke (a good one by the way:laugh4:) ..... or a sarcastic hint on the Sakas/Sauros or another steppe faction?:juggle2:
I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)
Nah it's definitely the Yayoi.
a completely inoffensive name
11-23-2009, 02:58
Cyrenaica under Magas of Cyrene. Just read the dudes wiki page "(r. 276 - 250 BCE)". I don't care if that seems like the most idiotic reasoning, but i just feel that the EB team would not pass up the chance for such a unique faction.
EDIT: If it turns out I am right, I want everyone in the revealing thread to put in a little praise for me.
EDIT 2: Also, Syracuse because people are guessing that one as a sure thing and I want for this post to be at least half right when it is all said and done.
I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)
If the Yuezhi aren't in it the Xiongu definatly won't be, chronologically and topographically its unrealistic. Plus there is the problem of culture, the Xiongu were an Altaic people not Indo-European, you would need a whole new culture slot not to mention new voice mods (for a language which I don't think has any modern descendants).
Apázlinemjó
11-23-2009, 13:26
I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)
And Napoleon with the Grand Armée! I just can't wait to fight the Macedon Phalanx with firearms!
If the Yuezhi aren't in it the Xiongu definatly won't be, chronologically and topographically its unrealistic. Plus there is the problem of culture, the Xiongu were an Altaic people not Indo-European, you would need a whole new culture slot not to mention new voice mods (for a language which I don't think has any modern descendants).
Either thats the driest sarcasm I've ever heard or you failed to spot the joke of a EB team member suggesting a completely inapropriate faction.
If the Yuezhi aren't in it the Xiongu definatly won't be, chronologically and topographically its unrealistic. Plus there is the problem of culture, the Xiongu were an Altaic people not Indo-European, you would need a whole new culture slot not to mention new voice mods (for a language which I don't think has any modern descendants).
Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!
Either thats the driest sarcasm I've ever heard or you failed to spot the joke of a EB team member suggesting a completely inapropriate faction.
:oops:You must forgive me, I have been writing about Scythian and Sarmatian culture for the past fortnight and so my mind is a bit frazzled :dizzy2:
Well I think its an given that the Belgae or an part of the Belgae will be in. And most likely there will be some at least some other like Celt-Iberians, Boii and another Germanic faction.
Boii seem like strong contenders. My only other worry is putting even more factions around the AS. AS games are hard enough as it is so a powerful Poleis like Pergamum worries me, although you never know it could be a nice buffer to Makedonia.
Full support for a Goidelic or another British faction!
eddy_purpus
11-23-2009, 21:24
Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!
:smash:
ziegenpeter
11-24-2009, 14:25
Full support for a Goidelic or another British faction!
Will you do the research? :book:
:clown:
I raise you the Tokugawa Shogunate, Moros!
Will you do the research? :book:
:clown:
May as well, gonna end up writing about Iron Age Britain and Ireland at some point on my course.
Obviously a Goidelic faction would be extremely difficult to create both from an archaeological perspective (first person to find the Irish Iron Age gets a medal!) and historical perspective but surely a British tribe like the Brigantes would be a feasible thought (just a thought, Im not one of these people who supports a British faction in the same way people have been supporting a Jewish faction), I just wish the Picts had emerged a few hundred years earlier than they did.
Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!
I raise you the Tokugawa Shogunate, Moros!
:focus:
Taliferno
11-24-2009, 22:17
Doupt there will be an Irish Faction. It would be based on to many assumptions. The four units in EB1 (with a few changes, primarily to the Nobles, IMO) amply represents Irelands inhabitants.
I would prefer the Brigantes to replace the Casse, and then add in a Belgic faction with one of its objectives being to take over Southern England. I believe that a Belgic faction has been suggested before though, but was turned down/argued against by one of the team members (not enough info at start period).
Someone ought to gather the various team quotes together and start another Lost Art of keeping a secret thread....
Doupt there will be an Irish Faction. It would be based on to many assumptions. The four units in EB1 (with a few changes, primarily to the Nobles, IMO) amply represents Irelands inhabitants.
Thats true, same would apply for Caledonia as well. I guess one problem with a Belgic faction (apart from a lack of info about the Belgic tribes in 272BC) is that they would probably start the game as Aedui allies (assuming the political system in 58BC had changed little since 272) which could make Averni games much more difficult or alternatively it could work very well by causing trouble for the Sweboz.
Any thoughts on the Veneti (a long shot i know)? Unique naval vessels could make for an interesting campaign.
athanaric
11-25-2009, 00:01
Any thoughts on the Veneti (a long shot i know)? Unique naval vessels could make for an interesting campaign.
Well, in EB I the Veneti have only two unique units (like the Chatti). Plus Gaul is pretty crowded already. The idea is interesting, no doubt, but IMO the faction slot should rather be spent on the Boii.
-Praetor-
11-25-2009, 00:42
I guess one problem with a Belgic faction (apart from a lack of info about the Belgic tribes in 272BC) is that they would probably start the game as Aedui allies (assuming the political system in 58BC had changed little since 272)
Actually it was the exact opposite. Belgae were in a furious fight with other gallic tribes around the start date of our mod, pushing their way into central Gaul, coming from Germany. Eventually, they were stopped by the Aeduii, and settled into modern day Belgica.
Some time ago a large battle site was discovered in northern France or southern Belgica, with bones and armour pertaining our timeframe, and one perhaps may assume that it was one of the battles of this conflict.
My memory is a bit foggy though, and I might be horribly wrong.
Taliferno
11-25-2009, 02:06
Any thoughts on the Veneti (a long shot i know)? Unique naval vessels could make for an interesting campaign.
The Veneti aren't that bad a suggestion. Although they appear to have been a minor faction in gaulish politics (from my brief skimming of the subject) they have the advantage of being expansionist in the British Isles, with Caesar saying they sent for help when he attacked them. Of course we don't know the exact nature of what these colonies were (i.e land conquered from others, or trade outposts that brought enough wealth to the locals they had an interest in sending help to the Veneti, or some other possibility, such as Caesar made it up).
eddy_purpus
11-25-2009, 05:23
Actually it was the exact opposite. Belgae were in a furious fight with other gallic tribes around the start date of our mod, pushing their way into central Gaul, coming from Germany. Eventually, they were stopped by the Aeduii, and settled into modern day Belgica.
Some time ago a large battle site was discovered in northern France or southern Belgica, with bones and armour pertaining our timeframe, and one perhaps may assume that it was one of the battles of this conflict.
My memory is a bit foggy though, and I might be horribly wrong.
Either the Belgae...
Or The Boii...
uhhhh I can see me fighting the Sauromatae and Germans at the same time as Boii's
Well, in EB I the Veneti have only two unique units (like the Chatti). Plus Gaul is pretty crowded already. The idea is interesting, no doubt, but IMO the faction slot should rather be spent on the Boii.
Oh no I agree I would much rather see the Boii than any other Gallic tribe.
Actually it was the exact opposite. Belgae were in a furious fight with other gallic tribes around the start date of our mod, pushing their way into central Gaul, coming from Germany. Eventually, they were stopped by the Aeduii, and settled into modern day Belgica.
Some time ago a large battle site was discovered in northern France or southern Belgica, with bones and armour pertaining our timeframe, and one perhaps may assume that it was one of the battles of this conflict.
My memory is a bit foggy though, and I might be horribly wrong.
You mean the site at Ribemont-sur-Ancre (http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=26252)?
Very big site that dates to right around the EB start date.
A nifty picture of the shrine that was build after the battle
https://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g177/0404625/Image1-7.jpg
Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!
Is that actually true? I really don't get the point of why culture slots are a limitation. Sure the UI is changed, and the city models look different and there are other things tied to culture, but I really don't get why its such a thing that if a faction was needed, you had all the info for them but they were of a totally different culture to the current ones that it would be a problem to just lump them in with something already there. Do people care THAT much about cosmetics that they would erase a historically significant faction?
oudysseos
11-25-2009, 17:47
Is that actually true? I really don't get the point of why culture slots are a limitation. Sure the UI is changed, and the city models look different and there are other things tied to culture, but I really don't get why its such a thing that if a faction was needed, you had all the info for them but they were of a totally different culture to the current ones that it would be a problem to just lump them in with something already there. Do people care THAT much about cosmetics that they would erase a historically significant faction?
Well, yes it is kinda a big deal. Family member portraits - do you want a Roman face in your Gallic family tree? Strat map models, cities, UI- they are all part of de-homogenizing the original product. And there are lots of historically significant factions, about which there is plenty of material, that already fit into the culture slots that we have- so why should we go looking outside the parameters? Hell, we could probably do 9 or 10 Celtic factions alone.
Maybe we are...
eddy_purpus
11-25-2009, 21:11
Well, yes it is kinda a big deal. Family member portraits - do you want a Roman face in your Gallic family tree? Strat map models, cities, UI- they are all part of de-homogenizing the original product. And there are lots of historically significant factions, about which there is plenty of material, that already fit into the culture slots that we have- so why should we go looking outside the parameters? Hell, we could probably do 9 or 10 Celtic factions alone.
Maybe we are...
You already said it!
There is at least one celtic faction !!!
:balloon2:
You already said it!
There is at least one celtic faction !!!
:balloon2:
Well I wouldn't be surprised by that, the Celtic tribes spanned across most of Europe really. I don't see how they couldn't have atleast one more Celtic faction.
I really can't wait til they reveal one though (if they do, that is). :p
originally i'd vote for a numidian, pergamon and britain based factions but they are already in.
so from a game-experience pov my prefferances for the other factions are rather similar to the great majority of posters from 2007 onwards (i actually read the first 9 pages before i noticed how old this discussion was :oops:)
1. boii - as said before their presence in central europe and north italy can serve a great deal in slowing german and roman expansion patterns, especially in the gaul theater.
2.a second iberian or celto-iberian faction to duplicate with more accuracy (or at least provide role playing) the political situation there. i.e. if some tribes can be used by either side of the roman-cathaginian conflict as allies, this would not automaticly include all of the iberian peninsula. and 2 factions might even present a more durable buffer against romano-cathage expansion north then 1.
3.kyrenae faction as buffer betwean ptolemaic kingdom and cathage
4.maybe devide the greek city states into 2 factions, but i fear this would not improve their survivability :no:
5. rebel seleukids, event triggered preferably, to accelerate their demise if some theritories are lost or some faction members get killed in battle
6. rebel romans, similary triggered by events, but more connected with theritory expansion, marian reforms and character traits
i know yuezhi are not included, but i'd also prefer if at least some nasty eleutheroi nomadic invasion pops in the far eastern edges of the map to spice things up for the bactrians and possibly seleukids if they still have a hold there. in my current game with macedon, while hunting seleukids past persepolis i was surprised to see the bactrians thriving in the north indias. and this is a second time they do this out of 2 campaigns i've played this far east. they need to be challenged somehow, especially if human controlled. and since indian faction is not possible, at least a time triggered mongol-like invasion of neautrals would do the trick. scripted to be quite agresive within their historical activity zones :book:
The team have stated that there will be no rebel factions as its a waste of a faction slot(you can't play them) and it would mean an unfair focus on a few factions (all factions would have experienced rebellions ot just the seleukids or romans).
Also there already is a scripted eleutheroi invasion in EB1 to represent the Yuezhi, not that having Baktria in north india is a problem, its what they did historically
The team have stated that there will be no rebel factions as its a waste of a faction slot(you can't play them) and it would mean an unfair focus on a few factions (all factions would have experienced rebellions ot just the seleukids or romans).
Also there already is a scripted eleutheroi invasion in EB1 to represent the Yuezhi, not that having Baktria in north india is a problem, its what they did historically
i know that rebels would be a waste of faction slots, it;s just that the roman civil wars in the 1century bc made a big impact on the overall geo-political balance. but if they are out, they are out. i can't think of a better way to use those 2 slots though. a second britain based faction and belgae? but adding those would really cramp the gaulic sphere of influence, just like adding thrace and ilyria would do to the balcans. are there any stepe candidates (seing how bosphorans are in already)?
-edit-
the problem is not bactrians taking over india, it's them still thriving and expanding unoposed 150+ years after the campaign starting point in 2 out of 2 cases i played in the east.
i know that rebels would be a waste of faction slots, it;s just that the roman civil wars in the 1century bc made a big impact on the overall geo-political balance.
What geo-political balance? There was only one dominant power around the Mediterranean before the civil wars, and that was Rome. After the civil wars there was still only one such power, and it was still Rome. The civil wars didn't even slow Rome's expansion, unlike for example the endless dynastic conflicts within the Seleucid and Ptolemean empires.
i think it did had effects, although at moments those effects seamed erratic. sulla for example turned from his campaign against pontus, and marched on rome. the "punitive" action against parthia was posponed because of the conflict with the pro-republicans. not to mention that the future of egypt (a client kingdom at the time) was directly influenced by the civil war (it can be argued that after's cesar's campaign, egypt was no longer a client state, but rather allied in terms of EB). most of the effects from the civil wars, seamed to concentrate on the eastern borders. it was not untill augustus' times that the east was shaped roughly as it will be for the next 200 years or more (minus the ocasional excursions into mesopotamia).
moonburn
11-27-2009, 08:04
originally i'd vote for a numidian, pergamon and britain based factions but they are already in.
so from a game-experience pov my prefferances for the other factions are rather similar to the great majority of posters from 2007 onwards (i actually read the first 9 pages before i noticed how old this discussion was :oops:)
1. boii - as said before their presence in central europe and north italy can serve a great deal in slowing german and roman expansion patterns, especially in the gaul theater.
2.a second iberian or celto-iberian faction to duplicate with more accuracy (or at least provide role playing) the political situation there. i.e. if some tribes can be used by either side of the roman-cathaginian conflict as allies, this would not automaticly include all of the iberian peninsula. and 2 factions might even present a more durable buffer against romano-cathage expansion north then 1.
boii and arevaci will probably be in indeed
as for the 3rd one i believe that the belgae will finally show up and probably with a fort in the british isles so we can remove the casse with a more historically accurate faction
that would account for pergamon, bosphorus, numidia, boii, belgae and arevaci.
what are other probable candidates then? 3 or 4 slots left if 10 more are available
i think it did had effects, although at moments those effects seamed erratic.
Certainly the civil wars had their effect, but if anything they made Rome stronger as it forced her to deal with lingering rebellions and bad provincial government. Despite the civil war, the rebellions in Iberia and Asia were stamped out in short order. This period also saw the most spectacular expansion of the Roman empire since the conquest of Hellas.
BTW, by the time Augustus was finished with the Ptolemeans, Egypt had been turned into his private estate. It wasn't even notionally independent any more.
no doubt that Rome got out of the civil wars stronger then ever. even during the intermediate periods expansion was evident, not in the least thanks to the unusual concentration of brilliant statesmen the period saw. and the golden age that followed after Augustus won, no doubt shows the republic was well overdue for rehauling. however the wars themselves did temporary halt the active campaigns. i am not proposing that the republic was capable of any expansion in the present state that it was, still for any effective gameplay reasons, having to lead your armies back into the homelands to protect your interests , would de facto simulate some of the historical manoeuvring :book:
-edit-
even more so if you get to chose which side you get to represent, with notable character and faction consequences.
i am not proposing that the republic was capable of any expansion in the present state that it was, still for any effective gameplay reasons, having to lead your armies back into the homelands to protect your interests , would de facto simulate some of the historical manoeuvring :book:
So did the civil wars of other nations, and they had far more dramatic consequences. I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion. Then there is the loyalty-rate that determines the likelyhood of rebellion: it's too crude a parameter to simulate complex politicking. It represents loyalty to the faction leader rather than factions within a nation.
So did the civil wars of other nations, and they had far more dramatic consequences. I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion. Then there is the loyalty-rate that determines the likelyhood of rebellion: it's too crude a parameter to simulate complex politicking. It represents loyalty to the faction leader rather than factions within a nation.
that explains a lot.
i did had in mind rebellion for the 3 major factions that heavily influenced history with their own civil wars (Rome, Seleukids and Ptolemaids), but if the loyalty is the only parameter available it might lead to counter productive effects, especially for the roman faction. and if you can't pick a side you might end up playing an unwanted side in it (usually loyalist), that would in this case mean playing as the senate against your most powerful generals. i can't vouch for others, but when i play TW, i identify myself mostly with the field generals then the home administrators, and in EB1 my preference often goes with the hired "allied" generals, as they often have more desirable traits and are faster to improve.
Horatius Flaccus
11-27-2009, 16:20
I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion.
Actually, someone managed to write a script for RTW to change factions mid-game.
Just look at this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=214616&highlight=console+command&page=2) thread (6th post).
I don't know if this can be used for M2:TW though.
oudysseos
11-27-2009, 20:44
boii and arevaci will probably be in indeed
as for the 3rd one i believe that the belgae will finally show up and probably with a fort in the british isles so we can remove the casse with a more historically accurate faction
Hmmm. Are you saying that having the Belgae in Britain in 272 BCE is more accurate than the current Casse faction in EB1? That is an interesting position. Can you prove it?
Here's a little paraphrase from material in Cunliffe, Birchall, Mattingly et al.
In 1890, the discovery of a "Belgic" cemetary at Aylesford was linked to the Marnian peoples of the continent by the site's publisher, A.J.Evans. Evans linked the site with Caesar's comments that the coastal areas of Britain were settled by Belgic invaders from northern Gaul. The excavation of graves around Welwyn, Hertforshire by Smith in 1912 were thought to confirm these ideas. Then J.P.Bushe-Fox's excavations of the Swarling graves in 1925 established these "invaders" to after 75 BCE according to the dating of the associated grave goods.
Since the authoritative account of the history of the British and continental Belgic tribes by Hawkes and Dunning in 1930 it has been accepted that the introduction of Belgic culture into Britain is represented archaeologically exclusively by the series of Late La Tene Aylesford-Swarling type cremation burials in the south-east. Its continental origins were traced to northern Gaul, the area occupied by the historical Belgae, where a similar series of cremation burials of Late La Tene date is known. This continental series, thought to mark a change from what seemed to be the universal practice of inhumation as mode of burial to cremation, was interpreted as representative of a fusion of inhuming Galli with cremating Germani from across the Rhine. This fusion, leading to the
formation of the Belgae, who, as Caesar records, boasted of their 'Germanic' origin, was thought to have taken place in the latter half of the second century BCE. The date for the first Belgic invaders of Britain was put at about 75 BCE. However, at the 1964 Conference on the Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, the initial settlement of the Belgae in Britain was up-dated. This resulted from Allen's reappraisal of the origins of coinage in Britain. Of the waves of imported coinages, taken to reflect the pattern of Belgic migration to Britain, the two earliest were attributed to the second century BCE., while the third and main wave, Gallo-Belgic C, was dated to about 100 BCE. Some sort of Belgic activity is represented in the Lower Thames area by the coins of the second century- and perhaps also the few brooches and swords - but Belgic settlement, it was felt, should date at least from the time of the third coin wave, about I00 BCE.
The Aylesford-Swarling culture in Britain may be defined as an archaeological culture characterized by cremation-burials in flat graves and accompanied by distinctive pottery types (wheel-made [not hand-made]). Examination of all the relevant material, including the reassembly of all possible grave-groups, suggests, particularly for Kent, the primary landfall, it is agreed, of the first Belgic invaders, the formation of 'homogeneous' groups of graves, based on the similarity of over-all contents. These form a simple relative chronological series, with 'early', 'middle', and 'late' periods.
The middle period, which was in full swing when Julius Caesar invaded, is thought to have lasted from about 50 BCE to about 10 BCE (there is a lot of very detailed archaeological analysis of British and Continental pottery and bronze vessels that go into these dates). The late period is usually taken to have ended with the Roman invasion of 43 AD, although of course many of the material aspects of the culture continued.
Dating the early period is a little more difficult, and speaks directly to what kind of faction the British Isles should have in EB2.
The paucity of the material in the early group inevitably raises the question whether it may reasonably be claimed that the group, while it may be pre-Caesarian, extends as far back in time as the dating attributed at least to the main coin wave at about I00 BCE. This is indeed a pertinent question for, though coins may relate to the dominant and wealthier elements of society which are unlikely to be documented by other archaeological material such as coarse pottery, yet burial-material ought to relate to the whole of the society, and the 'early' group represents the earliest typological stage in the Aylesford-Swarling sequence. It must therefore be doubted whether, on present evidence, there are grounds for up-dating the Aylesford-Swarling culture. On the other hand, the earlier dating for Belgic settlement in Britain proposed by the coin evidence gains some support from a reconsideration of the continental material. For it can now be shown that the continental Belgic tribes are of earlier origin than has hitherto been supposed. Analysis of the parallel Late La Thne series of Aylesford-Swarling type burials on the Continent reveals that its characteristic features of cremation-burial and distinctive pottery types have origins in Middle, and even Early, La Tene. Hence the conclusion that the southern Belgic tribes were developing during the third century BCE at latest. This is, moreover, consistent with the results of Marien's work on the La Tene material of the present-day Low Countries; here, owing to the demonstrable continuity of culture in the regional groups throughout La Tene, the Belgic tribes inhabiting these northern regions in historical times can be traced back to origins in the fifth century. The 'Germanic' origin of the Belgae, when expressed in archaeological terms, is seen to be Urnfield Culture. It would seem that, if the higher dating of the coins is accepted and given the much earlier formation of the continental Belgic tribes, the Aylesford-Swarling sequence, which is more closely related to the culture of the southern Belgae and seems predominantly post-Caesarian in date, represents a later -albeit the most dominant- phase of Belgic settlement and culture in Britain. Aylesford-Swarling is now seen to extend only part way along the widened, and still widening, horizons of Belgic history.
So, Belgic settlement of Britain is pretty clearly not in existence in 272 BCE - although there may well have been contact of some kind prior to the Aylesford-Swarling culture, which, also clearly, really only came into existence between Caesar's invasion and Cladius's 100 years or so later. According to Cunliffe (Iron age Communities in Britain), "Welwyn type cremations represent a tradition of aristocratic burial deeply rooted in the formative period of the Aylesford-Swarling culture north of the Thames." It is now thought that this culture developed because of the proximity of Roman trading systems, rather than a wholesale movement of continental peoples. The culture does not appear to have a secure pre-Caesarian phase. So we see that the "Belgic Invasion" of Britain cannot be decoupled from the expanding Roman hegemony - another important point for EB, where Roman hegemony is not a foregone conclusion. It is possible to assert that absent Roman expansion, the Belgic movement into Britain might not have happened at all, or in a different fashion and to a different chronology.
Although there probably was in fact some migration of 'Belgic' peoples from Gaul to Britain in the mid-1st century BC [after Caesar], likely fleeing Roman subjugation [or that of Gallic tribes allied with Rome], the most pervasive view today seems to be that the ‘Aylesford-Swarling culture’ was not the result of a large scale population movement, or invasion, but a manifestation of increasing trade and social contacts between south-eastern British tribes and their increasingly more Romanized neighbours across the Channel. Again, a Belgae faction in Britain in 272 BCE for EB2 hardly seems to be particularly historically accurate.
But perhaps you know something I don't?
Phalanx300
11-27-2009, 21:14
Mmm found out that the Batavians only came to their rhine area in about 50B.C., so definately no Batavian unit. At the time they were still a part of the Chatii.
Chatti would make for a nice brutal Germanic faction though :shifty: ...
oudysseos
11-27-2009, 23:10
Yeah, it's hard to realize sometimes just how much knock-on effect the growth of Roman power had: the British tribes a year before the Romans invaded were not in an original, pure state of grace. They had already been very significantly changed by their increasing incorporation into the Mediterranean economic sphere- in an extreme sense, a tribe like the Catuvellauni (of whom there is no record until after Caesar) was created by the presence of Roman power, even though it was across the Channel. The same principle applies to the Germanic tribes and indeed anyone on the periphery: we cannot say that any peoples/tribes/states were independent of and unaffected by the Roman hegemony, even those that were never officially part of it. That makes rolling the clock back very hard indeed, except in the case of 'factions' that kept records of their own- like the Greeks.
moonburn
11-28-2009, 07:48
i guess you´re right but there seems to be some evidence of trade beteween the island and the continent during the time of the construction of stonehenge since britain was extremly productive in terms of cereals and tin
ofc trade doesn´t count for setling i just hope there are some sort of belgae faction into the mix so we can have 3 celtic type of factions (in the belgae term probably a keltoi-germanico faction like the nervii )
as for the rest of the factions i´m still hoping for a proper 1st punic war with syracuse in the mix and ofc a far fetched alliance/conection with massilia (yeap i know it won´t happen but one can dream :laugh4: ) and another faction of skytians (around olbia) maybe to buff beteween the cimmerians and the getai or germanic tribes
Hello
I check these forums now and again and I was wondering can someone tell me (so I don't have to read all the 21 pages) is it just Pergamon and the Bosporan Kingdom who have been confirmed as new factions so far?
Thanks
The Kingdom of Massylia (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=117430) as well.
illyria should be a faction it would be very fun
anubis88
02-15-2011, 14:31
illyria should be a faction it would be very fun
OMG, White Hand has infiltrated the .org!
fightermedic
02-15-2011, 16:04
alert alert
someone call the army!
preferably the albanian one
:inquisitive:
White Hand was a troll, maybe an albanian nationalist. I don't know if gentt5 is White Hand.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=414089
Return on the subject.
About the Scythians, they were in Kallatis's region during the first half of the third century bc?
Because of these coins:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/kallatis/i.html
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/kallatis/Moushmov_203.2.jpg
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/kallatis/Moushmov_203.jpg
Populus Romanus
02-16-2011, 02:30
Oh my God, it is the White Hand. It is the hand of the infamous white troll, who crawls from his lair deep in the Albanian woodlands with the remnants of Volemort's soul once a day to terrorize the community of the TWCenter with his horrifying historical fallacies and two word sentances, all which start or end with "Illyria". Now he has set his bloodshot, cruel eyes on a new new community, a new target: The Org. And he has begun his reign of terror with an excruciating two year necromancing of a thread that has one identical to it still on the first page.
I think we should give gentt5 a break, he's a new member so we don't know if he is a troll or not yet, sure he necroed a thread and hasn't read much of the forums yet but people who are new to using forums often make these kinds of mistakes. We should help new members understand the polite way of using a forum, not accuse them of being trolls from another forum and scare them off.
Welcome to the .org gentt5 :bow:
I think we should give gentt5 a break, he's a new member so we don't know if he is a troll or not yet, sure he necroed a thread and hasn't read much of the forums yet but people who are new to using forums often make these kinds of mistakes. We should help new members understand the polite way of using a forum, not accuse them of being trolls from another forum and scare them off.
Welcome to the .org gentt5 :bow:
:yes:
anubis88
02-16-2011, 15:44
what did i do wrong?...
Nuttin... I just hate necrophiles :D
what did i do wrong?...
Don't worry, people just confused you with a guy over on the TWC who used to constantly demand there be a Illyrain faction, no matter how many times we told him there wouldn't be.
Welcome to the .org!
Yes, Welcome gentt5.
About your proposal, it's not a bad idea, but there is a lack of information about the Illyrians in the EBTeam. It's not easy to create a faction, the EBTeam has a high requirement about the historical accurancy. The only solution would be to have someone knowledgeable on the subject with an objective point of view. The Illyrians aren't alone in this case, the EBTeam searchs someone for the Iberic Peninsula. It's not only a problem of source but a problem of time available to work on the subject too. I think the team had even sought help from an expert for the Carthaginian and Numidian factions.
Well, I hope not to have said some mistakes. (I'm not a member of the Team).
There is no lack of knowledge concering Illyria, the team just feels that none of the Illyrian tribes of the period are deserving of a faction slot.
Leofikus
02-16-2011, 20:26
First of all, hello.
I hope I am not trolling because I sense Illyria is a touchy subject. Anyway, I kind of feared that the reason for Illyria's non-inclusion would be the lack of many info. Granted, I am a first year history student, but I am not very into the whole Illyria theme so excuse any mistakes I may make. What I do remember is that the definition of the Illyrian territory prior to what the province was is still very cloudy. I remember one example where it was taken for granted before that all territories on the Dalmatian coast, including the Liburnians and the Delmatae, were Illyrians, but further studies indicated that Illyria (at the coast at least) really starts south of the Delmatae. If any tribe could fit as a possible faction it would probably be the Ardiaei (and possibly Dardani), since they held an importance as an opponent to both Rome in their Illyrian wars and the Macedonians.
Being from Croatia the subject is quite sought after so the library has a section fairly filled with themes about it. Unfortunately, since most of the books are either from Croatian authors or people from other former-Yugoslav states I am quite doubtful that many of those books have international publications. The one big foreign book I remember reading was "Les Illyriens de Bardylis a Genthios" from Cabanes, but I am quite sure your massive team of historians digested that book all over.
Well, I hope you do your best with the info at your disposal. I am actually way more interested in hearing improvements for my beloved Egypt :)
Populus Romanus
02-17-2011, 01:20
Although they are not thechnically Illyrian (thus not being affected by the fact that there will be no Illyrian faction), the Skordiskoi lived in or next to (depending on your definition of what composed Illyria) Illyria, and they would make an excellent faction.
As i said before, none of the Illyrian tribes are really suitable for a faction, even the most powerful tribe during EB's timeframe, the Ardiaei, barely held a single province on the EB map at their height .
The closest thing we could feasibly have to a Illyrian faction is either the Scordisci or the Dardani, both of who were influenced by them to varying degrees, of these the Scordisci are the more likely as info on the Dardani is very scarce.
eddy_purpus
02-25-2011, 20:05
Can someone re-post a map with the already revealed factions from EB2 and the old factions of EB1..
Thanks
Horatius Flaccus
02-25-2011, 23:23
This is the closest you're going to get for now: click (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132348-Fan-based-map-progression-thread)
eddy_purpus
02-25-2011, 23:39
Thanks Horatius :)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.