Log in

View Full Version : New factions?



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Charge
10-15-2007, 14:21
The only thing that Brits did in that time is a resist to Roman invasions, and as far as I suppose, this is possible even for rebels. Definitely no 2nd brit-faction, or it will be extremely stupidity.
If make them not to attack mainland, you'll have one passive faction; if allow, than it will be completely ahistorical, so no faction in that area is option too, your should choose something ...

Foot
10-15-2007, 18:29
The only thing that Brits did in that time is a resist to Roman invasions, and as far as I suppose, this is possible even for rebels. Definitely no 2nd brit-faction, or it will be extremely stupidity.
If make them not to attack mainland, you'll have one passive faction; if allow, than it will be completely ahistorical, so no faction in that area is option too, your should choose something ...

How about you don't think about them in relation to the romans? They were an important power world-wide, commanding great trading power over much of the known world and great authority over the rest of the celtic world.

Foot

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-17-2007, 00:19
And remember, in M2TW the AI will not see the coast as the end of the world, and they will preform naval invasions and such.

Parkev
10-17-2007, 03:34
Absolutely the only unplayable faction I'd like to see and think could be justified due to importance and emergence due to factors largely outside the map would be the Yuezhi. But I agree with the lack of other emerging factions inside the EB borders.

There's no need for an emergent faction to be unplayable. I remember a Mod for BI that once beginning playing as the rebels, clicking on a specific settlement, allowed a script to be activated. This ran a completely AI game until the faction emerged. Played as the Romano-British that way.

Mouzafphaerre
10-17-2007, 13:20
.
I believe it's Epistolary Richard's mod...

It's Myrddraal's mod.
.

azzbaz
11-07-2007, 07:31
is it still true that there are still 2 factions slots for eb2 unchosen?

edyzmedieval
11-07-2007, 21:03
If the team chooses Pergamon or the Galatians/Bythinians, the area would be clogged up waay too much. 4-5 factions will fight for a single patch of land, which would mean endless battles.

Malik of Sindh
11-07-2007, 21:21
That exectly why we didin't include Galatians in AtB.I would really like just Pontos and Pergamon in Asia minor in EB 2.

Other factions that would be good are Boii and another briton faction.

Son of Perun
11-07-2007, 22:04
If Pergamon made it in EB2, what units would it have? I'm not sure whether its warfare was more successor-like or more like KH's.

Malik of Sindh
11-07-2007, 22:07
Something like KH+Souromatae

Son of Perun
11-07-2007, 22:17
Something like KH+Souromatae

Are you sure you haven't mistaken Pergamon with Bosphoran kingdom?

Malik of Sindh
11-07-2007, 22:37
Yes I did lol.Gosh,I was researching abit about bosphorus yesterday,and its the only thing in my head.I think pergamon should be have mostly succesor armies,with some KH hoplites.Im not sure though.

azzbaz
11-08-2007, 08:19
has the kingdom of Meroe been ruled out?

johhny-turbo
11-08-2007, 08:21
There's no need for an emergent faction to be unplayable. I remember a Mod for BI that once beginning playing as the rebels, clicking on a specific settlement, allowed a script to be activated. This ran a completely AI game until the faction emerged. Played as the Romano-British that way.
That's interesting, if that could be implemented for EB2 for the Yuezhi then I would definitly support playing as them.

Son of Perun
11-08-2007, 08:49
has the kingdom of Meroe been ruled out?

Good question. With the new African units their unit roster seems good enough to challenge Ptolemies. In fact, I don't see any reason why not to include this faction.

azzbaz
11-08-2007, 10:29
They would be a good addition I reckon. I was reading a bit on them on some sites and books. They have enough information and 'importance' to be depicted fairly well in EB2. I imagine they would start off with a culture very similar to Pharoanic Egypts, with units and architecture very similar. They could employ African elephants and make use possibly of chariots.
Over time they would make a culture very different and unique of other cultures.
Would be challenging to the ptolemies and would add some more action in africa.
They would start with Meroe, Kerma, and Napata the three most important cities in Nubia/Kush/Meroe I would imagine.
What do you think?

edyzmedieval
11-09-2007, 09:31
The Kingdom of Kush is totally out of the historical time frame of the period. It is actually. I'm not joking.

matte89
11-10-2007, 01:34
I woud like to see smaller factions like pontus, like Syracuse where you conquer sicily and gets stuck betwen two major powers.

azzbaz
11-11-2007, 10:16
The Kingdom of Kush is totally out of the historical time frame of the period. It is actually. I'm not joking.

Thats cool, but we were actually talking about the Meroitic Kingdom maybe you should take closer attention next time mate

azzbaz
11-11-2007, 10:21
Heres some evidence from an encyclopedia.
"...Meroë was the southern capital of the Kushite Kingdom or Napata / Meroitic Kingdom that spanned the period c.800 BC - c. AD 350"
It is a kingdom with relevance to the game and I believe is important enough to be in it

Meneldil
11-11-2007, 11:43
It has been stated a billion of times, including in this very thread, that there won't be a Kush or Meroe faction.
The reasons were IIRC :
- they haven't conquered anyone
- there unit roster would be quite poor
- people want this faction in just for the sake of having a black-people-only faction

Son of Perun
11-11-2007, 14:20
- they haven't conquered anyone

Neither have the Sabaeans, Koinon Hellenon, Lusotanians...


- there unit roster would be quite poor

Why? There are lot of east african units in EB. Their unit roster wouldn't be poorer then Sabaean.


- people want this faction in just for the sake of having a black-people-only faction

No, they want it because of its unique culture.

Sorry, but all these arguments seem pointless. Can anyone state better reasons why this faction shouldn't be in EB2?

Labrat
11-11-2007, 15:43
Sorry, but all these arguments seem pointless. Can anyone state better reasons why this faction shouldn't be in EB2?
How about that their main enemies, as wel as their historically prefered route of expansion, lay of the campaign map? They never seemed to have bothered the Ptolemies (and later the Romans) that much, despite defeating one or two invasion attempts. Nor did they do much against the Greek colonies on the Red Sea, apparently.

Incidentally, some people think that Saba may have invaded and ruled Kush sometime around the EB time-frame. There is no direct evidence, but then no Greek or Roman historian ever wrote about this place. Apparently, it was not considered influential by them.

BTW, leave the accusations of pro- or anti-black bias, please. It is not important for the discussion and will only lead to fighting.

Farikos
11-11-2007, 19:10
It just seems to me like a Nubian faction would have no choice exept to move north against the Ptolemies and get crushed. Unless they had a fleet to invade Arabia, but would they have had such a fleet historically? I am not as well versed in history as most of you.

Son of Perun
11-11-2007, 20:51
How about that their main enemies, as wel as their historically prefered route of expansion, lay of the campaign map? They never seemed to have bothered the Ptolemies (and later the Romans) that much, despite defeating one or two invasion attempts. Nor did they do much against the Greek colonies on the Red Sea, apparently.

Incidentally, some people think that Saba may have invaded and ruled Kush sometime around the EB time-frame. There is no direct evidence, but then no Greek or Roman historian ever wrote about this place. Apparently, it was not considered influential by them.


You seem to know something about Meroe. What were their main enemies you are talking about?

You're right that they haven't really bothered the Ptolemies or Romans or attacked the Greek colonies. It was mostly because of trade which was an important source of income for Meroe. Without the Greeks and their colonies, there would be no trade.

Saba also haven't bothered the Ptolemies or the Seleucids. Historically Saba in the EB time-frame was in decline. The Greeks took over the trade with India and Saba was gradually getting poorer. Meroe, on the other hand, was on the rise.

Afaik EB is not trying to recreate history. Playing for Meroe you would be able to choose another way to expand. The Ptolemies are fully engaged in wars with the Seleucids, so they would not be able to focus on the outlying southern border (as Saba-players can confirm).

I haven't heard about the Sabaean invasion to Kush. Even if such thing happened, it was probably short-lasting and unimportant event because the Meroitic kingdom lasted until the 3rd century AD when it was destroyed by the Aksumites.

Bellum
11-11-2007, 21:28
Afaik EB is not trying to recreate history. Playing for Meroe you would be able to choose another way to expand. The Ptolemies are fully engaged in wars with the Seleucids, so they would not be able to focus on the outlying southern border (as Saba-players can confirm).

I'm pretty sure they are, or as closely as practical. Many of the factions never achieved EB victory conditions in real life, yet the victory conditions themselves have historical relevance.

azzbaz
11-12-2007, 02:38
When Alexander the Great infiltrated further down the nile towards Kush he was confronted by the great army of The Kandake Of Medewi/Meroe seeing such a brilliant military formation he concluded it would be best to withdraw his forces.
DO NOT TELL ME THAT THESE PEOPLE NEVER THREATENED ANYONE.
When you have people like the Saba and Lusitani in the game and then your prepared to have Syracuse and Pergamon for the next game why the hell couldn't you have the Medewi kingdom?

azzbaz
11-12-2007, 03:32
Enough is Enough
The aim of this game is to achieve historical accuracy (or get as close to it as possible), agreed. This is why we play it (well this is why I play it anyway).
You want the finishing product to be as accurate as possible, agreed.
Yet, on the same page you would be quite content with having the Kingdom of Medewi represented as rebels, with one city and an army of a few hundred Ethiopian tribesmen on account of it being a more pacifist empire than agressor?
In my mind anyway this is not giving justice to these people.
I don't care it has been raised a billion times, this just means that there are a billion other people out there that want a historically accurate game like me.
If you are STILL ignorant to fact that these people deserve to be represented in this game, I suggest you find another mod.
I'll crusade for the Medewi Kingdom

[EB]Demulon
11-12-2007, 07:04
This is going to be Europa Barbarorum II, so I suggest we keep things focused on Europe or at least Northern Africa. Although I would rather see Meroe be a faction than Saba, whose rise to imperial status was twice as unlikely. Make them rebelling/shadow factions at best.
Make the Numidians a faction and give Carthage something to fear early in the game as opposed to them quickly becoming an economic superpower.

Foot
11-12-2007, 08:26
I am going to start talking in bold to appear more in with the crowd here. They have been rejected because of a very simple hardcode problem: cultures. We barely have enough culture slots to cover our existing factions. Culture decides what portraits a faction uses, so unless you want your Meroe Kings looking a bit on the white side (and we certainly don't), then you can forget about any faction from that area of the map. End of.

Foot

Meneldil
11-12-2007, 10:09
Sorry, but all these arguments seem pointless. Can anyone state better reasons why this faction shouldn't be in EB2?

Unlike KH and Lusotanians, Meroe wasn't a force to be reckoned with. No one ever bothered about them. Try to guess why it was never conquered for long ? Surely not because it was an extraordinary military force...
Even the Romans didn't care about that piece of land.


Why? There are lot of east african units in EB. Their unit roster wouldn't be poorer then Sabaean.

What about, you know, factional units ? I'm sure officials from EB explained repeatedly that they haven't got a clue about what specific unit a Meroan kingdom would get. You would likely end up with "Meroan Archers", "Meroan Spearmen" and "Meroan Axemen" and a whole lot of regional unit to make up for the lack of faction-specific units.
Furthermore, I'm also wondering why


No, they want it because of its unique culture.

Quite frankly, I don't buy that. There sure might be a few people here and there that have some knowledge about Meroe. But most people pushing for it are like "omg a black faction 1!!!1!11!! <3".

Nabatea would IMO make a much better faction near Egypt.

MiniMe
11-12-2007, 13:46
I'll crusade for the Medewi Kingdom
Plenty of historical accuracy there. Please, enjoy ap stick throwing boyar sons of Novgorod evil empire.

Son of Perun
11-12-2007, 15:58
They have been rejected because of a very simple hardcode problem: cultures. We barely have enough culture slots to cover our existing factions.

Not even in MTW II Kingdoms? I thought with more faction slots there are also more cuture slots. But I don't know anything about it. If you are planning to add the Numidians, Meroe could share the same culture with them.


Unlike KH and Lusotanians, Meroe wasn't a force to be reckoned with. No one ever bothered about them. Try to guess why it was never conquered for long ? Surely not because it was an extraordinary military force...
Even the Romans didn't care about that piece of land.

You really think that no one bothered about them because they were poor and undeveloped? Here are some facts about Meroe that can hopefully change your mind.

Meroe's location at the convergence of a network of caravan roads with trade routes along the White and Blue Niles makes it East Africa's most important center of trade. The Nubians of the Meroitic Period manufacture richly decorated textiles, graceful decorated ceramic vessels, objects of bronze and iron, exceptionally fine gold and cloisonn&#233; jewelry, and other luxury items.

That's also the reason why the Romans send there an expedition - to secure the gold mines in upper Nubia. So you can't say they were totally unimportant. They surely weren't an extraordinary military power, but they were an important player in that region. Expansion into Egypt was not even possible for them, the Nubians in fact made many attempts to conquer the Nile valley: some of them in 8-7th century BC, when they succesfully conquered the whole Egypt and ruled as pharaohs, and one even in the 1st century against the Romans. Of course they were defeated by Rome, but they became only a vassal kingdom and not a roman province.

But then again - what makes Saba so better then Meroe? No one has answered this question. As I have already written - the Sabaeans weren't more powerful then Meroe in this time period.

Meroe would be a good faction for EB2. At least it was historically important enough to be included.

Foot
11-12-2007, 17:12
Not even in MTW II Kingdoms? I thought with more faction slots there are also more cuture slots. But I don't know anything about it. If you are planning to add the Numidians, Meroe could share the same culture with them.

Nil points for history. Numidians were not black africans, so would not have the same portraits meroe. And 7 culture slots, just as in RTW 1.5, is the max allowed in MTW2. And as EB1 already uses 7 culture slots, we can't add another one for Meroe period, not even if they shared with another faction. Hence no meroe.

Foot

edyzmedieval
11-12-2007, 19:08
Thats cool, but we were actually talking about the Meroitic Kingdom maybe you should take closer attention next time mate



Heres some evidence from an encyclopedia.
"...Meroë was the southern capital of the Kushite Kingdom or Napata / Meroitic Kingdom that spanned the period c.800 BC - c. AD 350"
It is a kingdom with relevance to the game and I believe is important enough to be in it


Meroe was the capital of the Kushite Kingdom or the Meroitic Kingdom. Do you actually read what's in the encyclopedia?



Neither have the Sabaeans, Koinon Hellenon, Lusotanians...


Saba was a very rich kingdom. Koinon Hellenon was probably the "kingdom" with the most battles in the period of the game. Lusotanna was a big enemy of Kart-Hadast. Point.



Why? There are lot of east african units in EB. Their unit roster wouldn't be poorer then Sabaean.


We are talking about historical accuracy in EB, not how big or varied the roster is.



No, they want it because of its unique culture.


Give me 5 examples of unique culture to the Kush/Meroe Kingdom.



But then again - what makes Saba so better then Meroe? No one has answered this question. As I have already written - the Sabaeans weren't more powerful then Meroe in this time period.


Read some books and then talk. I recommend searching for Arabia Felix (forgot the author; google it and you'll find it) which will surely give you serious arguments why Saba was chosen in EB.

Dumbass
11-12-2007, 20:43
I want the Massaeyl Mauretania faction! And the Boii and Goidilic (Erain) factions.

Son of Perun
11-12-2007, 21:07
Thanks for the information Foot. :wall:


Saba was a very rich kingdom. Koinon Hellenon was probably the "kingdom" with the most battles in the period of the game. Lusotanna was a big enemy of Kart-Hadast. Point.

There was no such thing as KH in history so what are you talking about? If you mean those anxious city states with their petty alliances, KH was the "kingdom" with the most LOST battles in the period of the game.

Lusotanians were great warriors - but only in their own mountains. You could say the same about Meroe - they both lived in outlying regions with rough terrain and without much importance. Btw if Lusotanna was such a big enemy of Kart-Hadast, why are they allied at the beggining of the game?

Maybe Saba was rich but it never really tried to became an empire. They were only merchants and farmers.

Thanks for recommending me that book - I was searching for something about pre-Islamic Arabia.

edyzmedieval
11-12-2007, 21:40
There was no such thing as KH in history so what are you talking about? If you mean those anxious city states with their petty alliances, KH was the "kingdom" with the most LOST battles in the period of the game.

Yes, I am talking about those. I did not specify lost battles, I specified just battles, so be careful when you contradict as you may contradict the wrong point.


Lusotanians were great warriors - but only in their own mountains. You could say the same about Meroe - they both lived in outlying regions with rough terrain and without much importance. Btw if Lusotanna was such a big enemy of Kart-Hadast, why are they allied at the beggining of the game?

Then how come Baktria and Pahlava were allies of the Seleukid Empire and after some time both of them got their independence?


Maybe Saba was rich but it never really tried to became an empire. They were only merchants and farmers.

And the difference with Meroe is...?


Thanks for recommending me that book - I was searching for something about pre-Islamic Arabia.

My pleasure.

azzbaz
11-13-2007, 06:42
Look Ezymedieval, after the Kushite Capital, Napata was taken by Psamtik of Egypt in 591BC the successors of this kingdom moved the capital further down the nile to Meroe so in changing it to the Meroitic Kingdom. The people were called Kushites though so I apologise for the sarcastic reply.
Look, this argument can keep bouncing back and forth, but you are still left with very good reasons they should be in it and reasons that they shouldn't as with many factions already in the game. As for 'culture slots', I'm sure that the modders can represent them with one of the culture slots along with the Numidians.
Bold writing represent

azzbaz
11-13-2007, 07:03
...Or have the Numidians with the same one (culture slot) as the Carthaginians.

edyzmedieval
11-13-2007, 12:10
Carthaginians are of Middle East (Phoinikiai) descent. It's totally different from having the Numidians being represented in the same culture as the Carthaginians.

Son of Perun
11-13-2007, 15:31
And the difference with Meroe is...?

Finally! Of course there is no difference. That means if Saba is good enough to be in EB, Meroe is good enough too.


Carthaginians are of Middle East (Phoinikiai) descent. It's totally different from having the Numidians being represented in the same culture as the Carthaginians.

The Numidians were influenced by carthagian cuture, so its not that unrealistic.

Geoffrey S
11-13-2007, 15:38
What's being argues against is the 'too'. Both played a relatively small part on events on the campaign map and there is less information. But the area needs to be represented, so in my opinion it's one or the other, but not both; since the engine is more capable of representing Saba since they don't need a seperate culture for black portraits it's a far more logical choice.

Son of Perun
11-13-2007, 15:56
Well in my opinion it's not one or another. The region is large enough for both Saba and Meroe.

the Abyssinian
11-13-2007, 16:50
an easier solution to this is just use the kingdom of aksum. it had conquered both the meroe and the saba. it would be even better to have the 3 factions in there to make that part of the map more interesting.

Geoffrey S
11-13-2007, 17:55
Well in my opinion it's not one or another. The region is large enough for both Saba and Meroe.
Sure, if you've got suggestions as to which culture should make way for a new one with only Meroë (or Axum) so they can actually have black character portraits...?

I really think the region is best represented by strong rebels. Perhaps a similar script to the Boii one in 1.0, spawning a defensive army should a faction invade?

[EB]Demulon
11-13-2007, 20:37
https://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1240/possibilitykd9.jpg
I've been doing some thinking about what I think the EB2 map should look like. I've contracted the southern part of the map by taking out desert wastelands that no one in their right mind would want to conquer. This would free up for settlement slots for Europe.
Also, I think northern steppe settlements should be removed and replace the Saka with an emerging faction that would pose a mid-game threat to Parthia and Bactria, who in turn will put pressure on the Seleucids. Modeled from the Mongols and Timurids in M2TW, these nomads could also pose a threat to Sauromatae.

Saba should be removed as a faction, although I would keep their units to be hired as mercenaries. I think their faction slot would be best used for either:
Pergamon - (Greek) counter to Ptolemy/Seleudids, potential ally with Pontos
Thrace - could potentially be a rebelling faction, mushc like the civil conflict in English in the Britain campaign.
Belgae - further represent the divisions within Gaul
Numidia - counter to Carthaginian expansion. Could be a rebelling faction as well mid-game
Illyrians - like Thrace and Belgae, these people were not united by 272BC (I don't think) So they could be a rebelling faction, that is, they will unite if they no longer enjoy living under Greek/Roman/Getae rule.

This replacement would not require African or Arabian cultures to be included.
I think these changes would create longer and more challenging campaigns.Aslo, with the quicker turns in M2TW it wont take 10 hours of playing to get to 200BC!!

Admetos
11-13-2007, 20:59
To be honest, I really can't see any of that happening.

[EB]Demulon
11-13-2007, 21:10
I was thinking that steppe, arabian, and (southern) African settlements would be better used in Europe, such as including more towns in Magna Grachea, Greece and Anatolia.
I've read that the team plan on enlarging the map for EBII. While this would be great for condensed areas like Greece (more battles instead of seiges) it would cause problems for other areas.
Enlarging the map while keeping the steppes will make it impossible to travel from on city to another without rationing.
Furthermore, this would correct the problems of Parthia and Bactria's 272 starting position.

Son of Perun
11-13-2007, 21:34
I'm sure that EB team won't remove any faction that is present in 1.0.

[EB]Demulon
11-13-2007, 22:49
Why was Saba even included in the mod? I mean, I can understand the need to represent unique cultures, but to include a faction from modern day Yemen and Ethiopia seems to deviate from the whole barbarians of Europe theme. Don't get me wrong, I like their units in EB1, but to have a faction on the southernmost tip of the Arabian peninsula, where no other faction could pose a threat, makes little sense. :no:
I think their affect on the Successors can be simply simulated through a border-trade building...unless it is known for fact that they conquered large parts of Europe/Asia.
If someone could give a good reason why they are in the game, then I will stop asking why:book:

Admetos
11-13-2007, 23:00
EB is not intended to be barbarian mod, otherwise I'm sure we'd have just a map of Gaul and 20 Gallic factions. It portrays ALL factions accurately.

[EB]Demulon
11-13-2007, 23:11
I was saying that the mod, like its title suggests, should focus more on Europe and western Asia as opposed to the southern Middle East, which had little to do with the political and military development of ALL the other factions.
Sheba is in the middle of nowhere, and although they traded with Ptolemies and influenced Asiatic architecture, that does not warrant them getting their own faction. They are a waste of space, both settlement-wise as well as unnecessarily extending the map to the sparsely populated deserts of the south. I respect the hard work and research that went into representing them, but their inclusion is just no practical.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-14-2007, 08:22
EB stopped being about Europe and barbarians not too long after it was started. The name comes from the day when it was just a group of people begging CA to represent the barbarians of Europe with more historical accuracy and less unwashed horde feel. Once EB became an actual mod, it simply became a realism mod for the 3rd century BC.

Saba was added because the region was completely devoid of anything and sense it would be a unique faction. One of the things EB seeks to do is to teach, and having a Saba faction has caused many people to think about the history of pre-Islamic Arabia, and that in itself is a success.

In EB v7.4, Arabia was kind of wasted provinces that nobody bothered with; if you were really unlucky, Ptolemai conquered Arabia and became crazy rich.

Mouzafphaerre
11-14-2007, 08:55
.

Saba was added because the region was completely devoid of anything and sense it would be a unique faction. One of the things EB seeks to do is to teach, and having a Saba faction has caused many people to think about the history of pre-Islamic Arabia, and that in itself is a success.

In EB v7.4, Arabia was kind of wasted provinces that nobody bothered with; if you were really unlucky, Ptolemai conquered Arabia and became crazy rich.
Aye! :yes: If it were only for game balance Saba would still be a brilliant choice. They can not only stand but even defy the White, Yellow and Silver Deaths sometimes all at once. :shocked:
.

Nick.Altman
11-14-2007, 14:29
Illyria. RTR had Illyria and it's the only thing I miss in EB.

[EB]Demulon
11-14-2007, 18:46
having a Saba faction has caused many people to think about the history of pre-Islamic Arabia, and that in itself is a success.

That's a very good point. Thanks for clarifying that:smash:

edyzmedieval
11-14-2007, 21:15
Illyria. RTR had Illyria and it's the only thing I miss in EB.

For EB1, the team had to make really though choices in selecting factions. They aimed for balance, gameplay and historical accuracy, so that is why Illyria has not been selected (not because of historical accuracy...).

[EB]Demulon
11-14-2007, 21:26
I think Illyria would be a nice faction to include, as it would provide a strong counter to Roman/Greek expansion into the Balkans... but were they united by 272??

azzbaz
11-15-2007, 08:57
Demulon']I think Illyria would be a nice faction to include, as it would provide a strong counter to Roman/Greek expansion into the Balkans... but were they united by 272??
They were tribes with loose affiliations with each other. Their was at 272BC a tribe called the Ardiaei which along with the Dardani, was probably the most powerful. Their king at this time was Pleuratus. They peaked around 250BC when a king named Agron ruled. His kingdom included most of Illyria as well as bits of Epirus and Corcyra. Their capital was Scodra. They would probably be best represented as a faction

Sir Edward
11-16-2007, 01:04
Doing a quick search for Illyria History i came across this well put together and cited post.
Illyria Polical Organization (http://www.network54.com/Forum/63400/thread/1152174894/last-1163309551/Hellenism+of+south+Illyria-+On+elements+of+political+organization+of+illyrian+communities)

Like the poster above already said there are a couple of tribes in the 3rd Cent BC that would be as much a regional superpowers as say the Getai... trading, interacting with colonies of "cilivized nations", and hampering expansionist movement.

Bellum
11-16-2007, 03:14
I'm all for Illyrians if only to provide another competitor to Germans, who in my current campaign, went strait down, or to Epirus, who currently holds the area.

Rome AI needs all the help it can get, though. Pitting Epirus against another faction would perhaps allow them to take southern Italy faster.

EDIT: Well I can't predict the M2 AI, really.

Son of Perun
11-16-2007, 17:15
What units would the Illyrians have apart from Thureophoroi and Hippeis? I've read somewhere that their heavy infantry used very similar equipment as the Hoplites.

Spartan Soldier
11-18-2007, 19:40
You could also make more than one Campaign and give them some more factions.

Admetos
11-18-2007, 20:18
I don't think it's certain campaigns that have the limit on factions, it's the game as a whole.

Foot
11-18-2007, 23:50
I don't think it's certain campaigns that have the limit on factions, it's the game as a whole.

Both actually. You can only have maximum of 30 factions + 1 slave in a mod-folder's game files (you could of course have multiple mod folders. But you can also have a maximum of 21 playable factions (perhaps slightly more I haven't checked) before they stop appearing on the campaign menu screen.

Foot

I Am Herenow
11-19-2007, 08:26
So only one faction out of the 10 new ones will be playable?

Foot
11-19-2007, 10:46
So only one faction out of the 10 new ones will be playable?

Yeah, like we at EB won't think of a way round that one.

Foot

Kepper
11-19-2007, 13:19
You can have more of 21 campaign menu screen.
In MTW 2 you just can have 21 faction in costume battle or the game will crashe , but have saw a mod for Kingdoms it 24 factiom in costume battle.

Dibran88
11-27-2007, 01:00
How about Illiriya? all these rome mods in production disregard this faction, and put it under unplayable rebels. kind of rediculous.

Foot
11-27-2007, 05:28
Dibran, stop posting the same question in multiple threads. Its annoying.

Foot

Bartix Elite Guard
11-28-2007, 15:53
How about creating a sticky about which factions won't be in EB2? This would stop people asking if they are in or suggesting them to be in over and over again and make EB members explain why they are not in. Here's my attempt from team responses I have read. This is not official.

Kush\meroe\any black African faction - There are only 7 culture slots, cultures determine leader portraits ergo thy would have to have white portraits

Caledonians - not powerful enough

Cyrene - Not in. Shame.

Another Iberian faction - unlikely. There weren't many as powerful as the Lusitani.

Illyrians or Thracians - They were not united. 'Illyrians' or 'Thracians' is not specific enough.

Numidians - See above.

Bastarnoz - Not enough is known about them

Sparta - They are part of the Koinon Hellon.

'Roman\Egyptian\Selukid ect Rebels - There are many real factions to represent. They will be prioritized over rebels.

Strategos Alexandros
11-28-2007, 16:21
I'm fairly sure that EB members have said that Numidians will probably be in.

Bartix Elite Guard
11-28-2007, 19:59
I would be very surprised if 'The Numidians' were in. The term is not specific enough. See my comment.

Admetos
11-28-2007, 20:09
Originally Posted by Bartix Elite Guard
How about creating a sticky about which factions won't be in EB2? This would stop people asking if they are in or suggesting them to be in over and over again and make EB members explain why they are not in.

You obviously havent read the first Stele. You'll find factions that won't be included in there.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-28-2007, 21:19
First of all factions should be powerful, united, and expansionistic at the start date. Also, should be on the map (which can't be expanded). No shadow factions or emerging factions. From what has been admitted publically, this is basically what factions won't be in:

-Judaea : emerging and wouldn't expand
-Mauryan Empire : majority off the map
-Kush/Nubia/Meroe or Eithiopia : not powerful, on edge of map, culture problems
-Scandinavian tribe : little known, not powerful, on edge of map
-Slavic/baltic tribe : little known, not powerful
-Splitting up the Koin : if they were devided they would each be a rebel city
-Roman rebels : unplayable - could be used for a playable faction elsewhere

Strategos Alexandros
11-29-2007, 10:02
I would be very surprised if 'The Numidians' were in. The term is not specific enough. See my comment.

I meant by that "A numidian faction", such as Massyli for example.

V.T. Marvin
11-29-2007, 16:05
What about idea of rebel counterparts of your faction. IMHO it was very challenging in BI. Possibility of civil war gives you permanent threat regardless of your international successes. Why don't keep this challenge alive?

I hate this feeling, when my game loses his momentum. You know that feeling too I guess. It happens when you finish struggling in the beginning of the game, settle your economy and... you are doomed to boring conquering ;)

Imagine these AI active, tough and agressive rebellions could be programmed to ally with your enemies (maybe as protectorate) or to takeover your territory.

Emerging of rebellions could be connected with traits of your family members or antagonisms inside family (eg. spartans versus athenians in KH or hellens versus persians in Pontus).

So, don't spawn factions... God save me from my friends - I can protect myself from my enemies. ;)

I would like to support this idea. As long as the EBII map should be almost identical to EB1.0 one, I think the current distribution of factions is good enough. Having the feature of possible civil war is much more attractive game-play-wise than adding more factions. (In first Medieval TW it was a rather cool feature even in its rudimentary form there.)
It would also be much less demanding for modders, because you would need not to design new units and buildings. TW games are excellent at the beginning of a campaign, when the player really must think a lot about what he/she is doing. Occasional civil war would keep the thrill even in the mid- late-campaign when otherwise human player just dominates the world and the challenge drops rapidly.
Please, please, if there is the possibility, implement the rebel counterparts to playable factions rather than new ones. :yes:

:flowers: :bow: :flowers:

Foot
11-29-2007, 16:55
There is no possibility. How would we decide which factions would get it (seeing as we only have 10 new factions and 20 original ones)? Furthermore the new factions are needed to flesh out areas of the map that are otherwise poorly represented by rebels (especially where these are places where factions ahistorically expand. Finally we want to focus on education and we can better show the history of our world through playable factions than non-playable factions.

Foot

Foot

Sdragon
12-02-2007, 12:53
Here's my shot at putting the possible new factions into perspective First we need to take into account that although EB2 will have more faction slots to play with the amount of unit slots remains the same, so any new faction will have to use units already in game with few unique ones. So they will have to use other cultures units, which makes sense since the same number of culture slots remain right?

Bosperous Kingdom: It has already been stated that this faction was one of the runner ups in EB but didn't quite make it. It starts with 2 provinces which makes it an attractive faction plus it's Greek so that it will use units that already exist. Plus we have their unique heavy archers with steppe units. This along with it's location on the map makes it an interesting choice.

Massalia: Another Greek faction that starts with 2 provinces and stated by EB members as another 'could have been' faction. A mix of Greek and Celtic units plus it's own unique hoplite makes this another almost guaranteed choice.

Kyrene + Pergamon + Syrakousai: Since Greek factions are already fleshed out and one of these cities have their own unit any Greek faction will be easy on the unit slots. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more of these factions make an appearance since all three have been involved in wars and politics. Not to mention each of them has an interesting starting position for playability factor.

Ireland: I don't remember the name of the people that live here. EB has stated that they didn't actually exist until shortly after the game start date but you just have to look at the unit selection to see that the EB team take these guys seriously. 6, that's right, SIX regional units. Ranging from low end troops to uber elites, it's already a fully fledged faction, it just needs a slot. Would add a lot to the British region.

Galatia: These guys fight, it's what they do, not to mention there is a huge number of Galatian troops available which gives them a full unit roster. Plus Celts so far East fighting against phalanx troops would be pretty intense although the region is over crowded. Anyone else notice how Galatia appears in the EB Civ game? Could be a clue there. They would also help the whole rebellion leading to a crazy long distance Gaelic alliance.

Skythia: Two starting provinces and already have some unique units of their own. Plus given their location on the map these guys are the closest your ever going to having a faction in the Polish region. With a bit of luck they will help keep the Europeans in Europe.

A Belgae Tribe: 4 unique units and an excellent faction to sit in between the Germans and the Celts. But from a playability side of things not certain if they really bring enough to the table

Celtic Alps: Don't remember their name but they are strong thanks to the EB scripts A lot of unique troop types and a location that will help keep factions where they are meant to be.

Another Iberian or Germanic tribe: Don't know enough about these regions to comment but these area's have a bunch of regional units (including the Iberian tanks). Since these areas are lacking they would benefit from a faction.

Numidia: EB has stated that they weren't a united faction although they did say they would have wanted them in but there were other factions more worthy of an appearance. Perhaps with 10 new factions slots they will appear. The main problem being that there isn't a great deal of unit types so it will be interesting to see how much of a unit roster these guys would have.

Illiria + Thrace + Ethiopia: Unfortunately we know these guys wont appear despite Illiria having 3 units and Thrace having 5. They just weren't united enough. Ethiopia on the other hand lacks a culture slot although they do have a few units of their own.

Didn't expect it to be this long. Be interested to see what the rest of you think. Just some of the factions that I feel I know enough to write about. (Note: couldn't be bothered to proof read :yes: )

lobf
12-02-2007, 20:35
An Irish faction would be sick. It's pretty much inevitable that you conquer the British Isles city by city. An Irish faction would shake things up a bit. A belgae faction could also make things interesting.

I had an idea for the KH- Instead of a faction with all of them, you could consider making Athens and Sparta and maybe a couple more of those cities (I'm not too familiar with their politics and strengths at the time) independent factions allied in the beginning. If you played as Athenians, you would start out with just Athens and you could break your alliances when you chose and conquer the pennesula. It kind of takes care of the problem of the fragile alliance becoming a stable empire and each city could have unique units.

Hax
12-02-2007, 21:22
I think you'll get AI problems.

Imagine playing on VH/M as Sparta, with three full-stack Makedonian armies on your borders.

I think the KH should stay as it is, though you do make a valid point, and I wouldn't really mind if it went that way.

lobf
12-02-2007, 21:25
That's a good point. I'm sure that could be worked around, though. Or shit, if you want to play as Athens in 272, expect to have to heroically defeat a Mak stack in your first few turns.

Blitz5927
12-04-2007, 22:33
MY vote is for additional Northern Central/Eastern factions to spice up that area. An improved Getai factions would also be nice, as they always seem to capture about three cities, hold them for a little bit, and then get smoked by Macedon or Germany, but Macedon mainly. I can understand the rapid German expansion even if I've never seen the AI actually do this. Generally, I think the center part of the map is good. If we have any more hellenic factions such as Syracuse or Rhodes the middle of the map will become more packed than it already is. The Numidians to limit the inevitable Carthagian expansion would be nice. I mean, dunno about you guys, but I've never seen Carthagenot do well. I've also heard differently from other people, but the Avernii and the Auedi (spelling, I know. I'm talking about the two Gallic factions) seem to roll over really easily whenever the AI plays them. Heck, even the Casse beats em'.

-Another British faction so the Casse have a real enemy at the beginning of the game
-The Numidians to put the brakes on seemingly endless Carthaginian expansion
-Additional steppe factions to add some flavor
-Beefed up Getai that can hold their own against the Hellenes and Germans (and Romani later on)
-Moderately beefed up Gallc factions

Let's be honest, there really ain't a whole lot to fix about EB, but those are just my suggestions.

The General
12-08-2007, 01:25
- Goths (or some other German tribe
- A Goidelic (Irish) tribe
- Numidia
- Possibly (!) Illyria (it is awfully crowded there...)
- Random another nomad faction (Skythia, rising again? Alans? Yuezhi?)
- Galatians (everyone loves Galatians!)
- The Belgae
- Pergamon
(- Bosphoran Kingdom?)

Err, some of those. I think it read somewhere they had chosen seven out of the ten (I'ven't been following the development of EBII pretty much at all, I admit) new factions, so, dunno. Those'd just be the ones I'd personally most likely consider adding, from both historical and gameplay-based POVs (for example, there were several German tribes and the Goths would prevent the Sweboz from advancing too far to the east... But then again, the tribes were small, etc, and not exactly very important/influencial during the "EB time").

Hrm. I'll blame my tiredness for all the typos et cetera, it's 2:25 and I'm heading to bead now. 8D

Yitzhakofeir
12-11-2007, 10:15
I'd like to see an emerging Judean faction to simulate the Hasmonean revolt. But this is probably a dumb idea.

beatoangelico
12-11-2007, 15:23
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290

no emerging factions and no judeans, sorry :no:

Yitzhakofeir
12-11-2007, 16:20
Ah, I see. Thanks for the info then

Noob^^
12-11-2007, 19:37
I would like to see Noricum as a faction and maybe one of the western greek colonies like Massilia. I dunnot know whether they were strong enough to be considerable for a faction here but I think the mix of celtic and greek troops would be quite interesting. Ah and maybe a Numidian faction?

chairman
12-11-2007, 20:15
There are so many factions that would be great, but here are my top ones based on what has been said.

-Boii in Noricum to hinder the Romans and Sweboz.
-Numidia to channel Carthage overseas.
-Bosphoran Kingdom would just be cool and would liven up the Pontic/Steppe region.
-Scythia, still alive (barely) but could help slow ridiculous expansion by Hounds of Woden.
-Pergamon or Galations in Asia Minor to fight the Grey Death.
-Belgae, except that this works against the other Gallic factions.
-Thracian tribe or Balkan Celtic tribe to hem in the Greek factions.
-Cyrene to help stop the never ending Sand Wars.

factions that are cool but sort of serve counter purposes to playability.
-Belgae
-Illyria
-Rhodes
-Massilia
-Goidaels

That's all I have so far.

Chairman

konny
12-12-2007, 00:45
Save for Central Europe, the map is pretty much full.

A new faction in Asia Minor would be an absolute "no" for me. The region allows for only a little expansion that might give Pontos some teeth, or allow for the glorious return of the Lesbian Makedons after routinesly losing Pella to the Epeirote mercanery mob.

The same would be for the Southern and Western Balkans: Thrakia would be fine by the units but would block off that little expansion that we have by the Getai, about the same would be for Illyria.

Scythia would be the third Nomad faction. The RTW model didn't really support the idea, may be the M2 does, with it's free upkeep units? If not there shouldn't be more factions of that kind.

The Bosporian Greeks would be fine. But here again we have the problem,where to expand to? I think the AI would always head into Russia what would look somewhat odd for a Greek faction.

The Bastarnoz would be fine, on the other hand. I think, players won't mind to have a Barbarian faction controlling these hinterland provinces. Even though it would be a little early for a Germanic Empire in this region.

All the candidates for the Central European theatre were allready named. At least one faction (but may be not more) between the Alps and the Baltics should make it in.

The Italian Greeks in the form of Syracusae are another option. We allready have to (should-be) strong factions there with the Romans and Karthago, but both seem to ignore the region for the first decades of the game. A faction that starts there could bring some movement in.

The Casse could need an "anti-faction" as well. The Sweboz too. A second Germanic faction would represent the situation there better than the single empire that we usually have there around 260, in particular when both are run by the AI.

Pode
12-12-2007, 22:53
Still sulking over the fact that shadow Roman rebels won't make the cut :thumbsdown: I realize there aren't enough slots to give every faction a shadow and it's not fair to do it to some but not others, but I really wanted big bloody Roman civil wars as the Republic got unwieldy in the late years. By the time Marian legions come into play the Romans must own so many provinces that a civil war would be one of the only ways an AI faction could challenge them IMO. Wish you guys would reconsider this.

Perturabo
12-13-2007, 12:56
I would really love to see (and play) either Pergamon or Syracusa as a faction, however understand there may be some gameplay issues with this - perhaps a few more cities/towns in those respective areas might make it more possible? I have no idea how many regions can be supported by the MedII engine.

As for factions that are needed to help prevent ahistoric expansion - one that challenges the Sweboz is an obvious first with possibly an Irish faction to spice up the isles to the west, which are generally dead unless occupied by a human player.
A Numidian faction to challenge Karthadast, who though generally fairly quiet are always massive and completely unchallenged in Africa.

Apart from that anything else would really be a bonus!

Best of luck, though from your effort with EB1 I know you won't really need it :2thumbsup:

Strategos Alexandros
12-13-2007, 16:48
MTW2 allows 1 less city than the current amount in EB.

Foot
12-13-2007, 16:55
MTW2 allows 1 less city than the current amount in EB.

Nope, allows exactly the same. 199 land provinces + 1 sea province.

Foot

Sarkiss
12-13-2007, 18:32
Nope, allows exactly the same. 199 land provinces + 1 sea province.

Foot
whats a sea province?

Foot
12-13-2007, 19:07
Like ... the sea.

Foot

Sarkiss
12-13-2007, 21:00
Like ... the sea.

Foot
im sorry for being thick i just cant figure how the sea province can be actually used, how it works:dizzy2:

Foot
12-13-2007, 21:08
I don't understand your question. What do you mean "used"? Do you mean the files that reference it. Essentially it is a colour in descr_regions which gives it the property of being the sea (and so ships can be spawned there and harbours can be built on its edge and shipping lanes can exist there). Don't understand what else is there.

Foot

Sarkiss
12-13-2007, 21:20
I don't understand your question. What do you mean "used"? Do you mean the files that reference it. Essentially it is a colour in descr_regions which gives it the property of being the sea (and so ships can be spawned there and harbours can be built on its edge and shipping lanes can exist there). Don't understand what else is there.

Foot
yep, that answered my question, thanks

Maksimus
12-14-2007, 02:26
I did not read the whole thread ..

Ok, I am for One faction from INDIA and on that and if 'could' be realated to CHINA in any way.. Also, I could EB team could make more faction's in Europe and Some Small city kingdom's everywhere, but I am really voting for one more 'International' view for one of the best RTW mod's ever! :san_wink:

PseRamesses
12-14-2007, 08:22
A lot of focus, as usual, is directed towards Europe when this topic is discussed which IMHO is a strategical dead-end. EB already portrays this region well enough.

The introduction of Sabaeans made the whole south-eastern part of the map more enjoyable and more efforts like these would be preferred.
Introducing a Nubian kingdom like the Meroitic state is an excellent idea. It stretched from the 2nd cataract well beyond the 6th. And a thriving kingdom around the Axum region (SE Nubia/ W Ethiopia) would be implementable too. How about the Libyans then?

In W.Africa around Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria and through the Atlas mountain range there where several berber kingdoms, like the Numidians, and atleast one of them deserves some representation.
Personally I´d also like to see some emergant states scripted at historical date.

I´ve studied Egypts ancient history extensively for 20 years and we always ignore the tremendous trade and influence of the Read Sea region, Africas horn and inner Africa had on the "civilized world" back then. Take the Phoenicians and later Carthaginians for example. There is a reason why the founded cities all over Africa. Maybe our knowledge of these areas is just too scarce for us to fully comprehend and "feel" for a faction from these regions?!

Mouzafphaerre
12-14-2007, 09:56
.
I take it you haven't read the entire thread. ~;)

It's been made clear by the team that

There won't be any African factions (Kush, Meroe, Axum...) due to the engine's restrictions (culture)
There won't be emergent or unplayable factions for all of them will be playable from the beginning.

As for me, assuming that CA release a Kingdoms version not infested with the malware Securom and thus I play EBII, I would like to see another barbarian faction to counterbalance the Sw&#234;boz, the Casse or Lusotana, if not all of them. Another nomadic faction would help too.

I feel itchy about Koinon Hellenon and would prefer the city-states proper, in some sort of a league Kingdoms is supposed to support if possible, but the team discarded that option too.

What I would not want is another Hellenistic faction on top of the present 7, particularly in Mikrasia. Just in case: If somebody concludes that I have anything against the Hellenistic culture from this statement, solely concerned by game balance, then he needs professional assistance.

A Numidian faction is, IIRC, hinted to be being considered.
.

Tellos Athenaios
12-14-2007, 14:36
It's not your lucky day, Mouz: for starters your ex-/ex block contains a minor grammar mistake. (You've forgotten to add an agent to the main sentence, a proper one would be for example "he".)

Mouzafphaerre
12-14-2007, 20:04
.
I realized that but felt lazy to correct it...and the only time I neglect to edit for typoes/grammar I'm caught! :wall:

The second paragraph (the one following the list) doesn't sound perfect either. :stupido:
.

Abokasee
12-23-2007, 13:51
http://premium1.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan//bartix.jpg

Hax
12-23-2007, 19:04
20 watt lightbulb?

General Appo
01-10-2008, 21:42
There are loads of factions that would be extremely cool to have in the game, such as Galatians, Pergamon, Bastarnae, Illyrians, Belgae and many more already mentioned. I doubt many of them could be included though.
Anyway, here a couple of more factions that I doubt could be included and are probably not very historical but that I´m just dying to tell someone about, so please don´t say "that´s ahistorical" becasue I already know that.

Koinon Hellenon in the Western Mediterranean compromising the greek colonies Syracuse, Massalia and Emporion.

Some sort of Boshporan Kingdom in Chersonesos.

Ligurians based in Segesta.

Caledonians in Caledryn.

Some sort of Numidians, Mauretanians or the like on western northern Africa.

Anyway, I don´t think (nor am I sure I really want when I think about it) that any of these will be included in the mod, but I´ve been literally :wall: just because I couldn´t find anyone to discuss my ideas with.

hellenes
01-11-2008, 11:01
.
I take it you haven't read the entire thread. ~;)

It's been made clear by the team that

There won't be any African factions (Kush, Meroe, Axum...) due to the engine's restrictions (culture)
There won't be emergent or unplayable factions for all of them will be playable from the beginning.

As for me, assuming that CA release a Kingdoms version not infested with the malware Securom and thus I play EBII, I would like to see another barbarian faction to counterbalance the Swêboz, the Casse or Lusotana, if not all of them. Another nomadic faction would help too.

I feel itchy about Koinon Hellenon and would prefer the city-states proper, in some sort of a league Kingdoms is supposed to support if possible, but the team discarded that option too.

What I would not want is another Hellenistic faction on top of the present 7, particularly in Mikrasia. Just in case: If somebody concludes that I have anything against the Hellenistic culture from this statement, solely concerned by game balance, then he needs professional assistance.

A Numidian faction is, IIRC, hinted to be being considered.
.

You complaints should be directed to Alexander III and the aliens from Syrious that have mutated us to the state of super race :laugh4:
Anyway Im just joking...
As for that nice little spyware that SEGA tried to shove down our throats I got rid of it months ago...and have been playing Kingdoms without it...

Strategos Alexandros
01-11-2008, 19:49
There are loads of factions that would be extremely cool to have in the game, such as Galatians, Pergamon, Bastarnae, Illyrians, Belgae and many more already mentioned. I doubt many of them could be included though.
Anyway, here a couple of more factions that I doubt could be included and are probably not very historical but that I´m just dying to tell someone about, so please don´t say "that´s ahistorical" becasue I already know that.

Koinon Hellenon in the Western Mediterranean compromising the greek colonies Syracuse, Massalia and Emporion.

Some sort of Boshporan Kingdom in Chersonesos.

Ligurians based in Segesta.

Caledonians in Caledryn.

Some sort of Numidians, Mauretanians or the like on western northern Africa.

Anyway, I don´t think (nor am I sure I really want when I think about it) that any of these will be included in the mod, but I´ve been literally :wall: just because I couldn´t find anyone to discuss my ideas with.

I think a Numidian and a bosphoran faction were being considered. As for the rest I don't know.

Ludens
01-12-2008, 16:49
Koinon Hellenon in the Western Mediterranean compromising the greek colonies Syracuse, Massalia and Emporion.

Some sort of Boshporan Kingdom in Chersonesos.

Ligurians based in Segesta.

Caledonians in Caledryn.

Some sort of Numidians, Mauretanians or the like on western northern Africa.
A Numidian tribe, the Bosporean kingdom and a faction consisting of Massalia and it's colony Emporion were considered as factions. The Ligurians and Caledonians were not for obvious reasons.

Cloudtripz
01-25-2008, 05:20
Right, so, just throwing in my two cents. I think that in the interest of maximizing unique factions and balancing out the game-board, it would make sense to get rid of these factions: casse, armenians, and aedui (or averni).

The reason for getting rid of casse is simply that to balance Casse out, another faction would have to be thrown up there; and as the British Isles were not renowned for exotic or amazing warfare, this faction would be very similar to the Casse, and thus a waste. Also, I find playing as Casse to be kind of a bore for the first century or so; just fighting against rebels the whole time. Getting rid of Case would free up space for one of the new factions I propose.

Getting rid of the aedui would also free up another space, and as it is a very similar faction to the averni, it is not needed.

In their place, I would like to see:
1) a strong, unique faction either between aedui and sweboz, in the nethersland area; or a faction in lower Germany and western France
*This would be to balance out the Aedui and Sweboz. This faction should not be sandwiched between them if at all possible, but they should all share borders in a triangular manner. It could incorporate alpine troops, or something to that effect.

2) an Indian faction
*To add more color to the eastern part of the map, and give it political intrigue on the same scale as in Europe.

3) A faction in Southern France and along the eastern Spanish shore
*This would check the Lus., challenge Carthage in Spain along the eastern coast, and give the Romans a good fight in westward expansion. To make this faction more interesting, incorporating special Greek units along the shore would be helpful, perhaps available only in particular cities, as is true for the K.H.

Also, a stronger Dacian faction would be good to check expansion in that area.

Cloudtripz
01-25-2008, 05:27
Ah, and I forgot: the reason I think the Armenians should be taken out is not because I do not like them, but because it will free up room for these other factions. Also, I do not believe it will upset the geo-political situation in that area. It will leave more room open to Pontus, which will continue to provide a threat to the Sec. Empire; in that way, its strategic influence will continue.

Foot
01-25-2008, 05:53
Cloudtripz, firstly, the edit button is your friend.

Secondly, how can a desire to maximise "unique factions" be reconciled with taking out 3 unique factions. The Aedui/Arverni are the same as they represent the battle for gallic turf that existed between the Old Power of the Gauls (the Aedui) and the usurper (the Arverni). To take out one is to basically ruin the other. Hayasdan is a beautiful and unique faction, an odd cross between persia, the steppes and later the greeks, their place on the map is unique (how could one of the most important mountain ranges in the ancient world go without a faction?!). Finally the Casse, with their fanatical devotion to the hero cult, which gives them a unique battle plan, are one of the most unqiue factions out there.

Thirdly, you do realise that EBII is on the MTW2 engine, and the MTW2 engine offers 10 more factions on top of the original 20. Why would we get rid of three when we have 10 new ones to fill.

Foot

Cloudtripz
01-25-2008, 07:28
Oops, I apologize, I totally thought there were limits to number of factions ...

bovi
01-25-2008, 10:56
Yes.

Thirdly, you do realise that EBII is on the MTW2 engine, and the MTW2 engine offers 10 more factions on top of the original 20. Why would we get rid of three when we have 10 new ones to fill.

Ayce
01-28-2008, 21:51
Boii, Lugii, Helveti, Bosphorans...

SixFeetUnder14w
01-29-2008, 01:18
A Northern European tribe(Norway, Sweden,) could put those Germans in there place. And it would be a good faction to stop the Sweboz from expanding faster so they would have to worry about there northern flank. Thus bring them to fight north and to there west. The Sweboz always in my game were this chunk of red expanding every where.

Watchman
01-30-2008, 01:12
The problem would be that if I've understood correctly the Sweboz represent roughly the northern-most occurrence of enough political unity and structure to make a faction around 272BC, though...

SixFeetUnder14w
01-31-2008, 01:40
The problem would be that if I've understood correctly the Sweboz represent roughly the northern-most occurrence of enough political unity and structure to make a faction around 272BC, though...

I might could find some stuff, your from the or around area, do you want to help on the research if its at all possible for them create such a faction?

Turnus
01-31-2008, 02:01
These are the ten new factions that I think would be the most appropriate for EBII:

Five Celtic (and mixed Celtic) Factions:

The Galatians
A Celt-Iberian faction - the Arevaci or Vaccaei
The Treveri (Celto-Germanic)
The Bastarnae
Another faction in Gaul to compete with the Aedui and Arverni - the Carnutes, Sequani or Senones

It seems like a lot of the same (and a strange personal choice, as I rarely play as the Celtic factions), but each one of these is quite varied and different to each other (except perhaps for the last). They also help to prevent ridiculous AI Eleutheroi expansion, and force the AI factions to fight against each other. Galatians threaten Pontos, Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Celt-Iberians have the same effect on the Lusotana, Carthage, and the Gallic factions, the Treveri could help stop the Sweboz western expansion, as well as causing more trouble for the Gallic factions. The Bastarnae could possibly hamper Sweboz eastern expansion, and interact with the Getai, Sauromatae, and any other new factions in this region. And finally, I think that a third Gallic faction would more realistically present the state of Gaul in this period, and create a greater challenge for the Gallic player and AI.

Three city-states - Massalia, Syracuse and Kyrene

These would also prevent the AI taking very strong provinces as a result of Eleutheroi hunger. Massalia would add a further dynamic to Gaul, which would mean that the region, if the factions listed above were implemented, would have very few Eleutheroi provinces. Syracuse is another roadblock for Epeiros and Rome (and to lesser extent Carthage), while Kyrene breaks up the inevitable Ptolemaic-Carthaginian wars. It would be good to give these city-states their own particular flavour, and perhaps limit their imperial expansion but make them strong in home defence (scripted armies?).

A Numidian Faction - the Massyli

This faction would be a godsend in preventing Carthage's African Eleutheroi Empire. It would also be interesting to apply some of the featues of the nomadic factions to a faction in this part of the world. This faction will most likely make it in, and the one that I am looking most forward to playing.

The Bosporan Kingdom

This one has already been discussed quite a bit, and with good reason. It would have a varied and exotic unit roster, as well as a rather unique starting position for an Hellenic faction. It would be ideal, however, if this faction could be made to interact with Asia Minor and Greece, rather than merely expanding into the Steppe.

Other contenders - in order of most appropriate to least appropriate:
Noricum
The Lugii
Pergamon
A second Germanic faction (though I did suggest the Treveri and Bastarnae above)
Tylis (i.e. a Celtic faction in Thrace)
A Skythian faction
An Irish faction

Most of these were rather weak during the period of EB. Even so, I think that the first three are definite contenders (though I know that many do not like the idea of a Pergamon faction). An Irish faction would really only be significant for the Casse player. I think it's quite clear that there will be no Illyrian, Indian, Thracia, or Kushite faction.

Any thoughts on these suggestions for new factions in EBII?

Maksimus
02-01-2008, 05:24
Ok, I will go again with my suggestion:

Attalid Kingdom, Illyrian Kingdom, Kush Kingdom, Indian Kingdom (I think maybe two Indian kingdoms), one from China if possible (AND you have the China mod for that - it is very, very nice), Syracusai-Kyrene... + maybe .. Indo Greeks betwean Baktria and India?:curtain:

Watchman
02-01-2008, 06:01
I might could find some stuff, your from the or around area, do you want to help on the research if its at all possible for them create such a faction?Hey, I'm from the chunk that first started getting some semblance of larger political unity in the 1100s AD - and that was brought by the Swedes when they took over the place.

Far as I know the rest of Scandinavia wasn't much better off in terms of political organisation until the damn Viking times. Latter parts thereof, too, since all the little tribes and kings and whatnots weren't very keen on or receptive to some wonk telling them what to do.


maybe .. Indo Greeks betwean Baktria and India?:curtain:
Before the Baktrians came down from the Hindu Kush, wasn't there like... a few thousands of those guys or something ? Not exactly what I'd call a major mover and shaker...

Admetos
02-02-2008, 01:13
Indian Kingdom (I think maybe two Indian kingdoms), one from China if possible

That was sarcasm wasn't it?

The General
02-02-2008, 09:48
Another faction in Gaul to compete with the Aedui and Arverni - the Carnutes, Sequani or Senones[/B]

It seems like a lot of the same (and a strange personal choice, as I rarely play as the Celtic factions), but each one of these is quite varied and different to each other (except perhaps for the last). They also help to prevent ridiculous AI Eleutheroi expansion, and force the AI factions to fight against each other. Galatians threaten Pontos, Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Celt-Iberians have the same effect on the Lusotana, Carthage, and the Gallic factions, the Treveri could help stop the Sweboz western expansion, as well as causing more trouble for the Gallic factions. The Bastarnae could possibly hamper Sweboz eastern expansion, and interact with the Getai, Sauromatae, and any other new factions in this region. And finally, I think that a third Gallic faction would more realistically present the state of Gaul in this period, and create a greater challenge for the Gallic player and AI.
A THIRD Gaulish faction? Hopefully not.

Already, at least in EB I, the AI Arverni/Aedui have enough problems with one another, and usually either the Romans start conquering Gaul, or BOTH Lusotanians and Romani fight to become the masters of southern half of Gaul (and later possibly the norhern half's, too).

I've yet to witness a Gaulish faction to do any significant expanding (beyond Gaul).

Maksimus
02-04-2008, 00:10
That was sarcasm wasn't it?

No - it is my bad :laugh4:

But can one Indian faction be in anyway?

And about those Indo-Greeks - I ment the regions betwean India and Baktria - I just did not know how to call them :shrug: ... you know, in EB there were some states betwean India and Baktria that are rebel but were once under Alexander and still have some hellenic marks.. maybe a faction would be nice there :shrug:

Mithridates VI Eupator
02-06-2008, 15:37
Hello!

As you can probably guess by my name, my favourit faction is already in there, but I will list some factions I would like to see anyway.

1. Numidia: Not only because there is an urgent need for a north african faction to compete with the Carthaginians, but also because they played an important role in the punic wars, and even more so,in the Jugurthine wars.
Their unit rooster would probably consist of light cavalry and infantry, with elephant support.

2. Some eastern faction: I can't seem to think of any powerful enough to motivate a faction though. Perhaps some Seleucid satrapy, which, like the Baktrians, starts off as a Seleucid ally. Maybe the Persians. To my knowledge, they were more of a vassal to the parthians during their reign, anyway.

3. Boii: There have been a lot of discussions about some eastern european faction, and the Boii are, in my opinion, the best candidates.

4. Some Scythian-hellenic kingdom. Although the Scythians were i decline at the time, they were still present on the north-western shore of the black sea, although intermixt with the hellenes there. This faction could have an interesting mix of greek and steppe units, and, once again in my opinion, would make more sense than a bosphoran kingdom faction, which was basically a vassal to Pontus, at least during the later stages of the EB-era.

5. Thrace was one of my favourite factions in "Vanilla" RTW, but as EB starts after the collaps of Lysimachus kingdom, such a faction would be ahistorical.
If there were any powerful thracian kingdom at the time, it would be a great addition, but another possability is top include either Bithynia or the Attalid kingdom. This would not only add extra flavour to this already interesting area, but also give a more accurate representation of the political situation in western Anatolia.

Finaly, as the idea of Meroë as a faction has been rejected, another faction in this part of the world would be welcome. Perhaps Charakene. Apparantly, their kings called themselves "Kings of the Arabs", and this seems to indicate thet they were not entirely without ambition. Otherwise maybe Nabateans.

Anyway, I'm sure that whatever factions trhe EB-team chooses to include, they will be great, and a lot of fun to play!

Go EB2!

MeinPanzer
02-07-2008, 16:35
Caucasian Iberia would be an interesting addition, though it might be too crowded with Armenia nearby, and one or the other would inevitably be choked. If emerging kingdoms like Pergamon are being considered, I would vote for Charakene or the Scythian kingdom of Skiluros.

Ludens
02-07-2008, 17:57
But can one Indian faction be in anyway?
The main power in India at this time was the Maurean Empire, but since it would be mostly of the map (and seems to have shown little interest in expanding west) it is definetly not going to be a faction (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290). A Maurean Satrapy, on the other hand, has been mentioned as a possibility.

Mithridates VI Eupator
02-11-2008, 12:42
Heading back to North Africa, I have thought a bit about that Numidian faction I mentioned earlirer, and came to the conclusion that this might be better represented by two factions.
Perhaps one Massylian-Numidian and one Mauretanian faction. (I think someona had this idea earlier, though...) This would surely make this part of the map far more interesting.
I do not know much about the political situation of this area in 272 b.C., but I know that during the Jugurthine wars, there were two separate kingdoms there, who were allies. (The Massylian-Numidian king Jugurtha was betrayed to the Romans by the Mauretanian king, Bocchus, though.)
Given the 10-faction restriction, I know two new north african factions might be a lot to ask for, but I think it would both give a more realistic representation of the area, and improve gameplay, while it would severely hamper the Carthaginian quest for African domination.

Watchman
02-11-2008, 21:45
And about those Indo-Greeks - I ment the regions betwean India and Baktria - I just did not know how to call them :shrug: ... you know, in EB there were some states betwean India and Baktria that are rebel but were once under Alexander and still have some hellenic marks.. maybe a faction would be nice there :shrug:Methinks the earlier counter bears repeating:

maybe .. Indo Greeks betwean Baktria and India?:curtain:
Before the Baktrians came down from the Hindu Kush, wasn't there like... a few thousands of those guys or something ? Not exactly what I'd call a major mover and shaker...The Mauryan "autonomous satrapy" possibility Ludens mentioned is of course a different thing (and would pretty much be what the pre-Baktria Indo-Greeks were under anyway, if I've understood correctly).

Leviathan DarklyCute
02-13-2008, 13:52
Here are my suggestions:
1. Yuezhi (emergent faction)
2. Mauryan Empire
3. Numidia
4. Nabataea
5. Bosporus
6. pergamon
7. Illyria or other European faction
8. Rhodes
9. Cyrenecia
10. Mauritania or another European faction.

KhaziOfKalabara
02-13-2008, 14:03
The Mauryan "autonomous satrapy" possibility Ludens mentioned is of course a different thing (and would pretty much be what the pre-Baktria Indo-Greeks were under anyway, if I've understood correctly).

Presumably some form of scripting would be possible, if certain conditions were met, to enable the off-map Mauryans to open a can of whup-ass on the IndoGreeks if they got too autonomous (read: big / rich / outside India)? For gameplay and variety I think this would be a great faction.

I'd also love to see
1. Sciri
2. Bastarnae
These could provide a bit more colour in E. Europe and constrain the Getai / Sweboz.

3. Bosphoran Kingdom
Interesting unit roster and map position.

4. Massyli
All sorts of gameplay possibilities and a good anti-faction for Kart-Hadast.

5. & 6. Additional tribes in the British Isles [Silures?] and Spain, though I have no ideas which...

And of course Meroe, if it were at all practically possible... which it appears it is not. I have come to terms with my disappointment.:shame:

Matinius Brutus
02-14-2008, 16:05
Why don't most of the guys read the rest of the bloody topic. This is a discussion and it is starting to look like a converstion with a very very drunken guy:
- Hey, I want to go home!
- You drunken b@stard! You already are home!
- But I want to go home!
- YOU ARE HOME!
- Take me Home!!
What I meant is that some factions were obviously ruled out and still they are being suggested. Which is the main reason there are 13 pages on this topic. If you still insist to voice your opinion, please make a poll which will obviously be useless.

J.Alco
02-16-2008, 20:08
Just putting this out here as my 2 cents, but what about Qatabân? They seem to have been an Arabian faction whose star was on the ascendant during Eb's time period, in contrast to the Sab'yn, who were struggling by this period.

But then 2 Arab factions probably wouldn't work out, and in any case it would mean one replacing the other, which would be no fun at all, so I guess there's little chance of seeing this other Arab power :no:

Son of Perun
02-16-2008, 22:14
I didn't want to start a new thread so I decided to post here ~D .

I would like to bring a bit more attention to Meroe, even after it was decided it certainly won't be in eb2. I was discussing a lot about the Nubian kingdom in this and the AtB thread and I've come to some ideas I would like to share. If there was a possibility to add Meroe (enough faction and culture slots), the main problem would be the Nubian military.
They would start only with a limited unit roster which, as described by Strabo, would include spearmen, axemen, swordsmen and archers.

When they desired three days for consideration, and did nothing which they were bound to do, Petronius attacked and compelled them to fight. They soon fled, being badly commanded, and badly armed; for they carried large shields made of raw hides, and hatchets for defensive weapons; some, however, had pikes, and others swords. Strabo, Geography

Nubians also had cavalry - as the prophet Isaiah said, Jerusalem had seek help from the Nubian king because of its "trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen". Nubian king Pye was even buried with his beloved horses. In EB time-frame though their cavalry would not be of much value, it would be best represented by the Ethiopian cavalry.
Elephants would be probably also part of Nubian warfare, as they were one of the biggest exporters of them.

The change would come after Nubia would successfully conquer part of Egypt. Nubians could get a reform (something like Restoration of Nubian Pharaohs). My idea is that Nubian pharaohs would act much like the Late Period pharaohs. The pharaohs of the Egyptian Late Period considered the local soldiers to be unreliable and started to settle foreign mercenaries in Egypt (Ionians, Carians, Jews, Arameans and Phoenicians).

Apries having heard this also, armed his foreign mercenaries and marched against the Egyptians: now he had about him Carian and Ionian mercenaries to the number of thirty thousand; and his royal palace was in the city of Sais, of great size and worthy to be seen. So Apries and his army were going against the Egyptians, and Amasis and those with him were going against the mercenaries; and both sides came to the city of Momemphis and were about to make trial of one another in fight. Herodotus, The Histories

The settled mercenaries formed a core of the Late Period armies. The last native pharaoh was defeated by Persians in 343, only 11 years before the Alexander arrived in Egypt! When the Nubians invaded Egypt in 743 BC they quickly adopted Egyptian culture and along with that, Egyptian warfare. Why something similar couldn't happen later? After conquering part of Egypt, Nubians would be easily able to hire Greek mercenaries from the settled Greek population. Accompanied with Nubian and Egyptian troops the Greeks would form the late Nubian armies. The Greeks would be probably recruited in native MIC because historically pharaohs of the Late Period didn't rely on client/allied rulers to support them with mercenaries. Settled mercenaries were more like pharaoh's personal guard, so ingame they would be part of native MIC.

For the Nubian governments I would suggest:
1.Kushite royal province - ruled directly by Pharaoh
2.Kushite nomarchy - ruled by nomarch
3.Kushite subjugated tribe/kingdom - occupied territory
4.Kushite allied kingdom - allied territory

I thought of making a minimod which would add Nubia as a playable faction. The best platform would be AtB because it has free faction and culture slot and enough space in East Africa region for a new faction. But I don't have enough time and skills to do it myself :wall: (and seems it will take a long time before the AtB will be released).
So, any thoughts on these suggestions? Also if anyone knows about some good sites or books about Nubia/Meroe and Late Period Egypt, please let me know :bow: .
(please forgive me my poor English :sweatdrop: )

Here are some sites where you can find information about Ancient Nubia and Egypt:
Nubia:
http://www.nubianet.org/about/index.html
http://wysinger.homestead.com/mapofnubia.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/nubia1.html
Late Period Egypt:
http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn30.htm
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/timelines/topics/army.htm
An article about Nubian conquest of Egypt in National Geographic
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2008-02/black-pharaohs/draper-text.html
(surely not the best source of historical information, but can give a image of how Nubians and their culture looked like :egypt: )

Teleklos Archelaou
02-17-2008, 05:17
I didn't want to start a new thread so I decided to post here ~D .

I would like to bring a bit more attention to Meroe, even after it was decided it certainly won't be in eb2. I was discussing a lot about the Nubian kingdom in this and the AtB thread and I've come to some ideas I would like to share. If there was a possibility to add Meroe (enough faction and culture slots), the main problem would be the Nubian military.
They would start only with a limited unit roster which, as described by Strabo, would include spearmen, axemen, swordsmen and archers.
Here is what I could scrounge up in the best book I could find on them:


Saw a good looking book on Kush and checked it out. It's a 1998 book called The Kingdom of Kush, by David Welsby, British Museum excavator in the Sudan since 1982.

It has a little about the Kush army, here are some highlights:

"The people to the south of Aswan... were famed as archers, and this concentration on archery is a feature of Kushite armies. The stela of Harsiyotef records a number of campaigns in which the king sent out his bowmen to do battle with a variety of foes. Nastasen also sent his bowmen against the chief Kambasuten and against a number of rebel groups. The Harsiyotef inscription also mentions the use of horsemen. Kushite cavalry may be depicted on the south wall of the podium at the Sun Temple, Meroe, where there are several galloping horsemen armed with lances and wearing some sort of helmet. There is no evidence for the use of the camel in Kushite warfare and this may be compared with the rarity of dromedarii in the Roman army, which also operated in similar arid areas.

Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, describes Kushite soldiers who were part of the army of Xerxes as follows:

"The Ethiopians were clothed in panthers' and lions' skins, and carried long bows, not less than four cubits in length, made from branches of palm trees, and on them they placed short arrows made of cane; instead of iron, they were tipped with a stone, which was made sharp, and of that sort on which they engrave seals. Besides this they had javelins, and at the tip was an antelope hortn, made sharp like a lance; they had also knotted clubs. When they were going into battle they smeared one half of their body with chalk, and the other half with red ocre."

Archaeology graphically confirms some of Herdotus' observations. Although objects of copper-alloy and iron are known from early in the Kushite period, arrowheads of stone are a common find in royal tombs as well as in the more humble graves. Among the stones employed were flint, quartz, and carnelian."

"Over 400 years later Strabo, describing the Kushite troops that opposed the Roman army, noted that they were badly armed. Most were equipped with a large shield made of raw hides and hatchets. Some, however, had pikes or swords. Elsewhere he notes that the Kushites used bows of wood four cubits long and hardened by fire."

"From the weaponry recovered from graves the evidence for the importance of archery is overwhelming, although much of this ordinance may have been for hunting."

"...The special quiver provided for these arrows and the discoloration on the arrowheads have been though to indicate that these were poisoned arrows. This quiver is a copper-alloy cylinder suspended from a chain and with bells attached. Other examples are of leather, often very elaborately decorated."

"Remains of bows are very rare."
"The presence of the archer's loose implies the use of the Mongolian release, where the thumb holds the bowstring, rather than two or more fingers being used, as in the Mediterranean release."

"Spear or lance heads, one of the latter with a hollow iron shaft, are frequently recovered from graves, as well as rare examples of swords. A sword recovered from tomb Beg.W.134 at Meroe, unfortunately published without any measurements, appears to be a long thin weapon with parallel sides and a pointed tip. A similar weapon with a rounded pommel at the end of the hilt is depicted on a relief at the Sun Temple at Meroe in the right hand of a warrior, who wears the scabbard suspended by a strip high on his right side."

"Prince Arikhankharer is shown wielding an axe on a sandstone relief probably from Meroe, and axe heads, albeit not of this type, have been found in Kushite graves."

"There is very little evidence for the use of body armour by the Kushites. The war god Apedemak and a number of rulers are depicted on reliefs wearing what appears to be scale armour. However, there is no evidence that this was actually armour. This type of costume is common in Egyptian iconography, particularly on representations of Amun, in contexts where the wearing of armour would not be apposite. No armour of this type has been recovered from excavations on Kushite sites."

A cuirass was found among grave goods at Karanog - "the cuirass was made of leather with the hair left on the outer side. The leather has been worked up from within into a decorative relief pattern of knobs and bars. The use of shields is noted in the ancient sources. Graffiti at Musawwarat es Sufra shows warriors with large sub-rectangular shields. Shield bosses have occasionally been identified in the archaeological record."

"Arrian records that before elephants were employed in warfare by the Macedonians and Carthaginians, they were used by the Ethiopians [Kushites] and the Indians." "The elephant is described in Kushite art. At Musawwarat es Sufra reliefs of elephants are common. One of these shows a king riding an elephant." "On the northwest wall of the Lion Temple a file of elephants leads prisoners on ropes. Among the rare accounts of battles between Kushites and the outside world there is, however, no record of elephants being employed."

"There is again no evidence that the chariot was used in a military context, although light two-wheeled horse-drawn vehicles are depicted in processions."

They basically had as a threat nomadic raiding parties. "To combat such assailants the Kushite bowman and horseman will have been ideal."

If you are interested, this would be a good place to start a unit lineup with. They would probably be a faction if we had five more slots, but they aren't on the borderline (of getting into EB2 as their own faction). Hope we have some good local units for EB2 in these lands though, but they will still have to share the Carthie/Sabaean/?:grin:?/?:grin:? culture group, and thus won't have nubian looking generals.

Mouzafphaerre
02-17-2008, 09:05
.
I bet my galley slave's left arm that one of the ?~D?s are a Numidian faction. :yes:
.

thebigbossnahhh
02-17-2008, 21:42
The Attalids' Pergamonian Kingdom would be cool. Then again, they're is a million of them that would be cool. Boo on CA for creating a faction limit....I remember the XL mod for MTW had like 50 factions (don't know the exact number, I just know it was a lot more than 21). Soooo, CA, this boo's for you. Boo.

I came across an Early argument from one of the Mods on the TWC about the Clouds Across Europe Mod saying they can only get 30 Factions max.
Some have argued 30 Playable including Rebels making 31.

:thumbsdown:

Foot
02-17-2008, 21:45
Its 30 playable factions + 1 rebel.

Foot

Mithridates VI Eupator
02-18-2008, 12:24
...the Carthie/Sabaean/?:grin:?/?:grin:? culture group...

Interesting...

Two new semitic factions, eh?
This gets more exiting every day!!!

Abokasee
02-18-2008, 15:03
A Irish faction would be good, it keep the casse ocupied for sometime

I Am Herenow
02-18-2008, 17:03
they [Meroe] will still have to share the Carthie/Sabaean/?:grin:?/?:grin:? culture group, and thus won't have nubian looking generals.

Is one of them the Kingdom of Axum?

Son of Perun
02-18-2008, 21:04
@Teleklos: Thanks for the help! :bow:

@I Am Herenow: I doubt that. Axumites weren't Semitic, they were Ethiopians. I guess those two ?~D? factions are the Nabateans and Numidians.

russia almighty
02-18-2008, 22:22
...There isn't gonna be a pure Black African faction. Get that through your heads.



If you want that fix play Broken Crescent; and, the only one, Makuria, sucks ass unit wise.

I Am Herenow
02-19-2008, 17:42
Edit

Krusader
02-21-2008, 19:06
It was just a suggestion. Jeez.

One out of many, many many.

Klearchos
02-23-2008, 18:20
Hail

Have you considered the Calidonians as a new faction for EB2? They will be a threat both for the Casse and the Sweboz...the only problem is that not much is known about them...

Sorry if this has been asked before I didn't read the whole thread..

Ludens
02-23-2008, 21:47
Have you considered the Calidonians as a new faction for EB2? They will be a threat both for the Casse and the Sweboz...the only problem is that not much is known about them...

Sorry if this has been asked before I didn't read the whole thread..
Although I am not a team-member, they definitely won't be in. For a faction to make it into EB, it has to be unified and at least a regional power. The problem with the Caledonians is that they were not unified, and not exactly a power either. They were a pain to whoever controlled the area of the Brigantes, but that applies to so many tribes, and I don't think they had the politically sophistication to consolidate any gains beyond Caledonia.

To my knowledge there are two candidate factions in Britain, these being the Brigantes and the Erain.

Hax
02-25-2008, 00:13
The Attalid Dynasty of Pergamon would be a very good idea, I have to say. A lost memory to Lysimachos with a combination of Hellenic, Makedonian and Thraikian troops.

Good stuff...

Mithridates VI Eupator
02-26-2008, 14:04
Just tunintg in to check out the situation.

I just wonderd if anyone knows wether all the factions have been decided upon yet, or not.
I know we won't get any info on what factions there are until the preview, but anyway...

Admetos
02-26-2008, 17:09
IIRC something like 8 out of the 10 factions have been chosen, could be more now though.

Leviathan DarklyCute
02-26-2008, 21:01
I really think Numidia must be in EB2
Don't forget the Jugurthine War:rtwyes:

anubis88
02-28-2008, 22:26
I really think Numidia must be in EB2
Don't forget the Jugurthine War:rtwyes:
The problem is that Numidia wasn't a united kingdom at EB's start. It a kingdom later, but i would agree that the strongest tribe should be in EB2, as they did become quite strong later on

Leviathan DarklyCute
02-29-2008, 12:37
The problem is that Numidia wasn't a united kingdom at EB's start. It a kingdom later, but i would agree that the strongest tribe should be in EB2, as they did become quite strong later on
Great!:beam: I do hope that Foot will agree as well...

Mithridates VI Eupator
02-29-2008, 15:11
Then two new north african factions, for example one numidian and one mauretanian, wouldn't be such a bad idea, after all.
Might be a bit crowded in that area, but there are a lot of Eleutheroi provinces thre right now, that otherwise only fall into Carthaginian hands.
It would also better represent the state of the numidian and berber tribes in the EB timeframe.

Foot
02-29-2008, 17:44
Great!:beam: I do hope that Foot will agree as well...

'sgot nothing to do with me. I'm just FC for Hayasdan, Mod Leader for EBII, scripter, coder, traiter, part-time lumberjack, and weekend woman of disrepute.

Foot

Watchman
02-29-2008, 22:02
Sounds like a fulfilling existence. :rockstar:

Jaywalker-Jack
03-06-2008, 18:51
.
I bet my galley slave's left arm that one of the ?~D?s are a Numidian faction. :yes:
.

Could the Numidians be described as Semitic though? As far as I know they were Berber/Hamitic, so the culture group would have to be renamed.

I'd put money on the Nabataean Arabs being included, they're pretty significant historically.

Sir Edward
04-03-2008, 18:38
Have all the factions been selected for EB2? I think at last count the team said 8 of the 10 new ones were selected.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
04-03-2008, 18:48
9 out of 10 are chosen...

General Appo
04-03-2008, 19:19
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!
If you havn&#180;t already, this is your final chance to include that second Roman family that everyone is dying for and that is just sooooo historical.
Or just give the Ebherni their own faction, just imagine a faction who&#180;s only units are various alternations of the Dubosaverlacica. *drolls*
Regular Dubosaverlacicas, Dubosaverlacica with a bow, Dubosaverlacicas with a sling, Dubosaverlacicas with some more and lighter javelins, Dubosaverlacicas on horses with the same armour, Dubosaverlacicas on chariots, Dubosaverlacicas on elephants in the same armour, Dubosaverlacicas as Gaesatae (however that works), Dubosaverlacicas with two-handed swords, axes, short swords, sarissas, pikes, spears, lances, falxes, rhompaias, everything. Heck, give them their own ships to, a couple of floating logs with a Dubosaverlacica on them. Do it!!

Kepper
04-03-2008, 21:28
9 out of 10 are chosen...
Very good news

MarcusAureliusAntoninus
04-04-2008, 01:57
The tenth may remain vacant for scripting reasons...

Hax
04-05-2008, 11:12
Hmmm...this is interesting.

We should abduct and torture MAA to give us info about the faction list! =D

Dunadd
04-06-2008, 03:46
Maybe another Spanish faction so there are Celtiberians and Lusitanians?

A playable Numidian faction?

A Pictish or Pictish and Caledonian faction in Scotland and Scots-Irish in Ireland would also be great :)

Puppyonastik
04-06-2008, 08:11
Any idea when you'll start diving us completely insane by slowly revealing the 9-10 new factions to us?

Leviathan DarklyCute
04-06-2008, 08:59
How abou an emerging shadow-faction for Rome? (civil war etc.)

Hax
04-06-2008, 12:19
*twitch*

antisocialmunky
04-06-2008, 13:39
"Persian Treatment," anyone?

Teleklos Archelaou
04-06-2008, 15:35
Why reveal them when most of the unit work for them has not been done yet? We will start revealing them when we have a substantial amount of work done on them, and for the new factions I imagine it will be a while. We are working on some of the big, basic units used across many factions first.

Sir Edward
04-07-2008, 02:04
Can we expect all the new factions to be in the first public build of EB2 or will it be a more drawn out process?

Teleklos Archelaou
04-07-2008, 13:18
We don't know exactly at this point, but we are starting out with all factions in our working build, so I would think it might lean towards the former of your two stated options.

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-07-2008, 15:06
There will be previews of the new factions sometime before the release, though, right? Not immediately, but when enough work has been done. Allthough I always like to be supprised, one needs a EB "fix" now and then to stay sane.
I'm not trying to push you here, I'm just curious!

Teleklos Archelaou
04-07-2008, 15:42
We will just have to wait and see. I hope there will be, but we've got to get enough information for the factions actually into the game to merit a preview.

Tellos Athenaios
04-07-2008, 18:50
Yeah The Lost Art of Keeping a Secret. Would be cool. :2thumbsup:

I Am Herenow
04-08-2008, 10:20
Edit

Hax
04-08-2008, 11:57
Probably a second Roman family, which will be scripted into the game when you have bad public order in your Italian provinces.


This second Roman family will use flaming pigs, Gladiators, First Cohort Romans with Lorica Segmentata, all in green, and they will all speak with an American accent.

russia almighty
04-08-2008, 13:37
This might be dumb, but make up some files that allow for fast recruitment rates ect. I know you have said your going to use M2TW's features to basically give units a non-existent pool.

Ibrahim
04-09-2008, 23:04
I have some suggestions
why not the 2 numidian kingdoms+ Mauritania? they would balance Karthadesht out, and fill up the area with more interesting events.

also add Pergamon, Galatia (both for AS control, and something to keep the Sweboz in check(bosporos perhaps)?
lastly, something to prevent the Baktrians from going wild?

Teleklos Archelaou
04-09-2008, 23:31
I have some suggestions
why not the 2 numidian kingdoms+ Mauritania? they would balance Karthadesht out, and fill up the area with more interesting events.

also add Pergamon, Galatia (both for AS control, and something to keep the Sweboz in check(bosporos perhaps)?
lastly, something to prevent the Baktrians from going wild?
All of those have detailed proposals on our internal forum (as do many many more). The ones we choose/have chosen might not be exactly what any individual person wants (they aren't exactly what each individual team member wants either), but we have very successfully managed to get the factions we virtually all agree on in 1.1 and we are ecstatic that we can increase their numbers by quite a lot for EB2. Our guys have been putting a lot of work into faction summaries and how they each fit in our list of necessary requirements.

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-10-2008, 10:09
I'm convinced that whatever factions you have decided upon, they will be good.
Based on the diversity and truly "epic" scale of the factions in EB1, I believe that the EB team will do an even better job with this "sequel", or whatever I should call it.

(However, 3 new factions in north africa might be overkill. I'd settle for two: Numidia and Mauretania.)

Krusader
04-10-2008, 16:38
I'm convinced that whatever factions you have decided upon, they will be good.
Based on the diversity and truly "epic" scale of the factions in EB1, I believe that the EB team will do an even better job with this "sequel", or whatever I should call it.

(However, 3 new factions in north africa might be overkill. I'd settle for two: Numidia and Mauretania.)

Hopefully they will be, but my gutfeeling will say there will be many people screaming for other factions that did not make it in.

Ah well, such is the mod life.

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-12-2008, 14:51
True, true.
But I promise I will not scream, at least not out loud...

I Am Herenow
04-12-2008, 22:22
Edit

General Appo
04-13-2008, 07:43
Calm down, you don&#180;t know he was annoyed. They&#180;re obviously not willing to reveal what exactly the last faction slot is going to be used for, in part because they&#180;re probably not quite sure themselves yet, and so will unlikely give serious answers to questions regarding that faction slot. Or any other faction slot for that matter.

abou
04-13-2008, 16:08
Plus, Hax isn't an actual member of the team - he's just a beta tester.

General Appo
04-13-2008, 21:18
Yeah, I&#180;ve never even meet the guy before.

Hax
04-15-2008, 22:48
Plus, Hax isn't an actual member of the team - he's just a beta tester.

Yeah, people shouldn't overall listen to me.

Elminster12
04-16-2008, 05:32
Plus, Hax isn't an actual member of the team - he's just a beta tester.
Whatever the case, I demand the inclusion of Bartix, Nubians, and Bronze Age Egyptians!

Hax
04-16-2008, 09:15
I believe "Hax" is best to be defined as a chaotic force that runs through everything, though people can't live without it.

A necessary evil, at best.

General Appo
04-16-2008, 14:55
But mostly just an evil.

Olaf The Great
04-20-2008, 04:24
I demand the Dwarven Kingdom of Ironforge, located in scenic Iceland.

On a serious note, any plans for a Goildlac Kingdom to Counter Casse?

Spartan198
04-20-2008, 07:27
I'd like to see Illyria,another Germanic tribe,and the breakup of KH in favor of Athens,Sparta,and Rhodes as seperate factions.

chairman
04-20-2008, 09:05
Numidia - Semitic
Mauretania - Semitic
Gandhara - Eastern
Pergamon - Western Greek
Belgae - Barbarian
Scythians - Nomad
Bosphoran Kingdom - Nomad
Boii - Barbarian
Massilia - Western Greek

These seem like reasonable prospects based on stuff that the Team has said.

Chairman

Visitor13
04-20-2008, 12:09
Numidia - Semitic
Mauretania - Semitic
Gandhara - Eastern
Pergamon - Western Greek
Belgae - Barbarian
Scythians - Nomad
Bosphoran Kingdom - Nomad
Boii - Barbarian
Massilia - Western Greek

These seem like reasonable prospects based on stuff that the Team has said.

Chairman

Oh yeah, the Belgae. I had expected a second Germanic faction, but this choice looks more interesting.

Need to read up on the Gandhara, are they supposed to be an Indian-flavoured faction?

Massilia? Wouldn't Syracuse be better, wasn't it the stronger of the two city-states?

Pity a Sudanese or Ethiopian faction can't make it in.

The prospect of these new factions make me hate the province number limit even more.

Ludens
04-20-2008, 14:10
On a serious note, any plans for a Goildlac Kingdom to Counter Casse?
The possibility of a second faction on the British isles has been discussed a couple of times before. Ranika always said that it would be the Brigantes, but more recently the Erain (proto-Goidels) have been tipped of as a faction.


I'd like to see Illyria,another Germanic tribe,and the breakup of KH in favor of Athens,Sparta,and Rhodes as seperate factions.
Illyria is certainly a candidate, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans got another faction, but the KH definitely won't be split. Both Athens and Sparta were shadows of their former power, and couldn't hope to stand up to Macedonia alone. And since the A.I. seldom helps out an ally, when played by the A.I. they will simply be swallowed by Macedon or Epeiros, and you'd have wasted your faction slots. The KH will be weakened in other ways, but they need to be unified in order to stand a chance against their northern neighbours.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
04-20-2008, 19:34
The tenth may remain vacant for scripting reasons...
An emerging civil war faction that is triggered by certain levels of unrest in big enough human player empires. This faction would basically have the eleutheroi recruitment options.

chairman
04-20-2008, 23:11
The problem with Syracuse is that it would only have one province (Trinakrie), while Massilia would have two provinces (Greseoallra and Lacetania). Also, Syracuse would be mainly restricted to greek units with the occaisional Italian unit or mercanary. Massilia would have access to Greek, Celtic, Iberian and the occasional Italian/Ligurian unit. They would also not be confined between 3 larger factions like Syracuse, and would help slow Roman and Carthaginian conquest of Gaul.

Chairman

Sir Edward
04-21-2008, 00:28
Emporion in 1.1 also has unique temple that's text heavily hints at it and Massilia being a faction.

Krusader
04-21-2008, 01:57
Can safely say Massilia wont be a faction. Compared to many other factions they did not do much and when they did wage war against Carthage the Greek colonies in Iberia didn't bother sending help.

There should be a thread somewhere explaining this more thouroughly. Try the Search function.

Edit: Syracuse is also very iffy. There is practically no information regarding the Syracusan military from 280 BC to its fall, when it comes to composition, equipment and the likes. The Syracusan Hoplite unit we have is also in for an overhaul in EB2 as we found out that some archeological sources used for its creation, where Mamertine in origin.

chairman
04-21-2008, 05:02
That's too bad since Massilia would be in such an interesting position. However, there is a bright spot to this in the fact that it opens up space for a possible Arevaci-led Celtiberian faction. This would be very helpful in balancing the wars in Iberia.

Possible New Faction starting territories (capital in bold):

Arevaci - Numantia

Numidia - Kirtan

Mauretania - Siga, Sala

Gandhara - Taksashila, Opiana

Pergamon - Pergamon

Belgae - Bratosporios, Bagacos

Scythians - Olbia

Bosphoran Kingdom - Pantikapaion

Boii - Bononia, Eburonum, Vindobona

Some of these I'm not as sure about, namely the Boii, Belgae and Mauretanians.

Chairman

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-21-2008, 10:30
I think that both Boii, Mauretania and Balgae are adequate factions. Actually, I think they would be great additions to the game. The only things I would change in your list, is to replace the Bosphoran Kingdom with Illyria, And maybe add some other eastern faction instead of Gandhara. I think the Persians would be fun to play, however, they might be somewhat ahistorical in the EB timeframe.
thus, my new, edited list, would be:

1. Arevaci
2. Belgae
3. Boii
4. Illyria
5. Mauretania
6. Numidia
7. Pergamon
8. Persis (or other eastern faction)
9. Scythians

It will be interesting to see how many I get right.

Hax
04-21-2008, 13:33
I think the Persians would be fun to play, however, they might be somewhat ahistorical in the EB timeframe.

They.

Were.

Gone.

Apart from some revolts around Pasargadae, the Achaemenid Persians to which you refer were nothing but a memory. Want to play Persians? Fine, just play either Hay or Pahlava, conquer Susa, Ekbatana, Persepolis and the rest of the cities and enjoy your Persian empire!

artaxerxes
04-21-2008, 20:57
I VERY strongly support Syracuse as a faction - they should have immense fortifications (special structures to emulate the inventions of Archimedes perhaps? - just a thought), a starting army of elite units, and a huge trade income which can fund the elite army - provided their port isnt blockaded.

As for the arguments against it:

1) that it would be quickly destroyed as an AI - perhaps, but would be a nice touch for Roman and Carthagian players, and its starting defences should be such as to make sure that it doesnt just fall within the first few years

2) no great history after 270 BC. - perhaps not, but previously Syracusan kings (Dionysius, Agathocles, if I'm not mistaken) carved out large empires on Sicily and in Southern Italy. That Syracuse - had it been left alone and had the Romans and Carthagians weakened each other (both entirely possible scenarios in EB) - there's no reason why it shouldn't have done so again

3) lack of historical knowledge regarding the Syracusan army - well, as said, knowledge apparently exists of the Syracusan hoplite. Otherwise it SHOULD be possible to create a quite convincing military based on knowledge of earlier Syracusan armies compared to the evolutions in Greek military in the east - may not be the most historically accurate, but it's unlikely to be so ahistorical as to offend anybody, and given the improvement to the playing around Sicily, I think it would be worth the cost - the sight of both Pyrrhus and Syracuse running around and messing up Rome's and Carthages struggle is far superior to a mere war between Rome and Carthage ;)



My other wishes for factions would be

2) Pergamene - due to their importance of course, + the added mess it'll make in Asia Minor
3) North African faction of some kind, perhaps Numidian, so that Carthage hasn't got the place all to themselves - often gets too cozy there if they can keep peace w/ Ptollies and ward off Romans
4) faction to stop Sweboz empire, but dont know anything about it (nobody seems to do;) )
5) Galatians - again to mess up Asia Minor and be both darn irritating and darn entertaining for us Seleucid players

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-22-2008, 15:30
They.

Were.

Gone.

Apart from some revolts around Pasargadae, the Achaemenid Persians to which you refer were nothing but a memory. Want to play Persians? Fine, just play either Hay or Pahlava, conquer Susa, Ekbatana, Persepolis and the rest of the cities and enjoy your Persian empire!

I know they were. Thats why I said they would be ahistorical.
And why I added "or other eastern faction", after them in my list.

I admit I might have been somewhat "vague" on this issue, though. What I meant was some faction in this area of the map, not necessarily centered around Persepolis. However, I can not come up with a single one which was present during the EB timeframe.
(However, the region of Persis was, as far as I'm concerned, more of a vassal state during the reign of the parthians. This was not the case during the Seleucid hayday, though, so it doesent help much.)

General Appo
04-22-2008, 19:46
Sooo... you want a faction it that area, only problem is that there weren&#180;t any factions in that area? So what do you want the EB team to do, make up an entirely new faction? Bartrix? Even Vanilla didn&#180;t make up completely new factions.
Hell, I want a faction in Balticum but I&#180;m not going to demand that the EB team makes up a faction with some vague units in that area.

brymht
04-22-2008, 21:51
Honestly, I think the diversity of the game would improve significantly if the following faction were added. But really, make whatever factions you want; I'll still love it. :)

1. Arevaci
2. Axumite
3. Gandaran
4. Numidia
5. Pergamon
6. Persis (or other eastern faction)
7. Scythians

Hax
04-23-2008, 13:30
2 is a big no. EB team has stated there will be no African factions.

brymht
04-23-2008, 13:37
Thats really unfortunate, as Axum/ Ethiopia was really big in a lot of classical world view and myth; even back to Memnon in the Illiad. I think it would really add a LOT to the game, although their conquerable eara outside thier homeland might not be very large, outside Egypt.....

Krusader
04-23-2008, 13:44
Honestly, I think the diversity of the game would improve significantly if the following faction were added. But really, make whatever factions you want; I'll still love it. :)

1. Arevaci
2. Axumite
3. Gandaran
4. Numidia
5. Pergamon
6. Persis (or other eastern faction)
7. Scythians

1,3,4,5, are all possible.

2 is not. We are constricted to 7 cultures and would be folly giving an entire culture slot to a sub-saharan african faction just for that. In addition Axum/Nubia/Ethiopia had their glory days before and after the EB time period.

6. Persis was for most of the time an autonomous satrapy under either the Seleukids & Parthians and seemed to have stayed quiet mostly. Plus we have other more interesting eastern factions on the shortlist.

7. Scythians were a declining power at this time. We already have the Sarmatians as the European nomad faction. If the Scythians are added, it would probably only be as a significant part of the Boshporan Kingdom unit roster, should we decide upon that faction.

Daos
04-24-2008, 08:59
I for one think the Scythians would be a great faction. Declining or not they could be included and wouldn't need much work as some units are already in the game and they are pretty powerful and most useful. Numidia should have been in 1.0 so don't make that mistake twice. Also I think another far eastern faction is needed to balance the map a bit. But please before all this expand the current factions and give at least 4 new units to each. Also please don't nerf the cavalry. I know it's ancient times and some of you consider that it was weaker than in the medieval period but remember what it did for Alexander...

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-24-2008, 11:01
Sooo... you want a faction it that area, only problem is that there weren&#180;t any factions in that area? So what do you want the EB team to do, make up an entirely new faction? Bartrix? Even Vanilla didn&#180;t make up completely new factions.
Hell, I want a faction in Balticum but I&#180;m not going to demand that the EB team makes up a faction with some vague units in that area.

Hah!
I'm not demanding anything! I'm just listing some factions I would find interesting, but I wouldn't want any humbug factions. Thats why I specified that I would find a faction in this region, not necessarily Persia, interesting.

That is why I find krusader's remark that they have other ideas for factins in store very interesting.
Althoug I must add: I still think that the scythians would be interesting.
However, I stress that this is NOT a demand:beam: , simply my personal opinion.

Foot
04-24-2008, 12:51
I for one think the Scythians would be a great faction. Declining or not they could be included and wouldn't need much work as some units are already in the game and they are pretty powerful and most useful. Numidia should have been in 1.0 so don't make that mistake twice. Also I think another far eastern faction is needed to balance the map a bit. But please before all this expand the current factions and give at least 4 new units to each. Also please don't nerf the cavalry. I know it's ancient times and some of you consider that it was weaker than in the medieval period but remember what it did for Alexander...

And what about all the other factions that are equally deserving of being included, and who, unlike the scythians, were not on their way into obscurity, but who were rising into the apex of their achievement. Give any thought to the Iberian Kingdom of the Caucasus, who, at the game's start, existed in an alliance against Hayasdan with Arche Seleukeia in a nasty pincer movement, and who, along with Hayasdan became an important power throughout our timeperiod. No? Didn't think so.

Numidia was not included because we felt that there were more important factions to be represented by our limited faction slots. Don't throw around "should" as if our decisions don't hold equal if not more merit than your own. We were once again constrained by the hardcodes, and so every decision we made was a hard one.

Finally, MTW2 does not expand the number of unit slots that we can use. With 10 new factions waiting in the wings it will likely be that some factions may even lose core faction troops, but in return the number of regionals will increase. In EBI we have left the number of units at 460, leaving 40 to share amongst the 10 new factions. As all of the factions currently chosen have pre-existing units included as regionals in EBI, this number of 40 isn't so bad.

On a minor note, our position on cavalry has not changed, and unless you can pull something more concrete than some romantic interpretation of Alexander's battles through Asia (which, if we are in anyway to be respectful to history, requires are far more indepth and complex analysis than you seem to be giving), you speak as if your words are naught but dust.

Foot

Daos
04-24-2008, 13:23
WELL...


And what about all the other factions that are equally deserving of being included, and who, unlike the scythians, were not on their way into obscurity, but who were rising into the apex of their achievement. Give any thought to the Iberian Kingdom of the Caucasus, who, at the game's start, existed in an alliance against Hayasdan with Arche Seleukeia in a nasty pincer movement, and who, along with Hayasdan became an important power throughout our timeperiod. No? Didn't think so.


... I've never heard of that Kingdom. I've did heard of the Scythians though like most people. And I consider them to be some of the best archers in EB.

Numidia was not included because we felt that there were more important factions to be represented by our limited faction slots. Don't throw around "should" as if our decisions don't hold equal if not more merit than your own. We were once again constrained by the hardcodes, and so every decision we made was a hard one.

You do realize your mod lacks exotic factions? We don't want another phalanx faction or a HA faction. That's why so many people wanted Numidia in this mod. They are different! And I bet that there are a few black people out there playing EB that would want that Africa to be truly represented in this game.

Finally, MTW2 does not expand the number of unit slots that we can use. With 10 new factions waiting in the wings it will likely be that some factions may even lose core faction troops, but in return the number of regionals will increase. In EBI we have left the number of units at 460, leaving 40 to share amongst the 10 new factions. As all of the factions currently chosen have pre-existing units included as regionals in EBI, this number of 40 isn't so bad.

So you're gonna take out units instead of puting in much needed new ones. Hm... now that's evolution. This should be a sequel not a prequel so taking out units is a big NO imb

On a minor note, our position on cavalry has not changed, and unless you can pull something more concrete than some romantic interpretation of Alexander's battles through Asia (which, if we are in anyway to be respectful to history, requires are far more indepth and complex analysis than you seem to be giving), you speak as if your words are naught but dust.

Ooh yeah. Now don't tell me mister teacher that the Macedonian army had weak cavalry. How historically accurate is that? Why was Alexander himself riding with them? Doesn't that imply that they were the most important part of his army?


"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"

T.S. Eliot

owns

Foot

Teleklos Archelaou
04-24-2008, 13:47
I suggest you take a break from our forum Mr. Daos. Foot told it as it is. You are the one who is trying to tell us (in a "you know what is best fashion") how to judge which factions are worthy of inclusions and your manner is what is most grating. Do it again like that and you are gone.

Daos
04-24-2008, 13:52
I suggest you take a break from our forum Mr. Daos. Foot told it as it is. You are the one who is trying to tell us (in a "you know what is best fashion") how to judge which factions are worthy of inclusions and your manner is what is most grating. Do it again like that and you are gone.

lol

:laugh4:

You people just can't stand criticism, now can you? I was just suggesting to add some things to make the game better. I was not telling you to remove anything and I was not looking for a fight nor insulting anyone. Why are you people so nervous? What are you afraid of?

Hax
04-24-2008, 15:02
You are trying to speak for the people, which I'm pretty sure who's support you don't have.

The EB team has spent a lot of time doing research on factions, and it is fairly obvious that the Skuthioi were declining at this time.


You do realize your mod lacks exotic factions? We don't want another phalanx faction or a HA faction. That's why so many people wanted Numidia in this mod. They are different! And I bet that there are a few black people out there playing EB that would want that Africa to be truly represented in this game.

Okay, Foot, Teleklos, can I get it straight for now?

African factions in EB: NO!. Unless you can magically give them another faction slot.

Just because there are some Finnish people that like the game doesn't mean they'll include a Finnish tribe.

Or more obviously stated: What people want (Lorica Segmentata) and what is historically accurate tends to differentiate.



Ooh yeah. Now don't tell me mister teacher that the Macedonian army had weak cavalry. How historically accurate is that? Why was Alexander himself riding with them? Doesn't that imply that they were the most important part of his army?


"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"

T.S. Eliot

owns

Foot

Just a moment later you state:


You people just can't stand criticism, now can you? I was just suggesting to add some things to make the game better. I was not telling you to remove anything and I was not looking for a fight nor insulting anyone. Why are you people so nervous? What are you afraid of?

Saying that you "owned" Foot is quite insulting, also telling them they can't stand criticism and taunting them is not really desired behaviour on these forums.


Also please don't nerf the cavalry. I know it's ancient times and some of you consider that it was weaker than in the medieval period but remember what it did for Alexander...

Where have they ever stated they will "nerf" the cavalry? I, for one, can't remember this.

KhaziOfKalabara
04-24-2008, 15:05
I was not telling you to remove anything and I was not looking for a fight nor insulting anyone.

Well...



You do realize your mod lacks exotic factions? We don't want another phalanx faction or a HA faction.

So you're gonna take out units instead of puting in much needed new ones. Hm... now that's evolution. This should be a sequel not a prequel so taking out units is a big NO imb

Ooh yeah. Now don't tell me mister teacher that the Macedonian army had weak cavalry.

At the very least, you could moderate your tone. It could be a little less aggressive and sarcastic. Remember, nobody's actually paying the EB team - they're doing all of this for free, for us. (Well, for themselves really, but we get the benefit.)

Krusader
04-24-2008, 15:13
You do realize your mod lacks exotic factions? We don't want another phalanx faction or a HA faction. That's why so many people wanted Numidia in this mod. They are different! And I bet that there are a few black people out there playing EB that would want that Africa to be truly represented in this game.

We lack exotic factions because we strive for historical realism.

Blame history for there being so many Hellenic states at this time and 3 HA factions aint that much.

Teleklos Archelaou
04-24-2008, 15:22
Daos, your reasons for including those factions are, to put it bluntly, laughable. They will not be included. We are not "afraid" of them, it is just inane to debate including factions because *you* say we have plenty of similar ones already, or because *you* say some ethnicities today would like to have similar ethnicity factions in the game. Get lost.

Foot
04-24-2008, 15:37
lol

:laugh4:

You people just can't stand criticism, now can you? I was just suggesting to add some things to make the game better. I was not telling you to remove anything and I was not looking for a fight nor insulting anyone. Why are you people so nervous? What are you afraid of?

So a unit of good archers now defines the criteria upon which our faction list should be based (I will note that you keep using the word "should" in, as far your own impression of your meaning is concerned, the wrong way). Unfortunately we wish to define the great moments of our period; the political and economic powerhouses that emphasize the complex interplay of differing cultures (not simply the romano-hellenic one that survived in the west) during this extremely interesting period. To focus on a dying culture because their in game unit of foot archers (or horse archers, if you were referring to them) is, in your opinion, the best of their kind, is just clearly wierd.

And again you seem confused as to our motives in creating EB. It is not as a showcase of all the fantastic and exotic cultures that did exist (though mostly at the periphary of the map), but as a showcase of the great states, kingdoms, and empires that forged the world of our map throughout our time-period. To say that no-one wants another phalanx or HA faction is certainly true, but then I don't think any fan of EB would define a faction purely in terms of its unit line-up - does not Arche Seleukeia offer a different game than Ptolemaioi, does not the Saka offer far different obstacles than the Sauromatae. No, your definition of a faction lacks depth, and is thus useless to us. That is not to say that gameplay does not inform our opinion, but only when married to the equally important discipline of history. As my own motto for EB says: History does not conflict with gameplay, it inspires it. And as everyone knows, fiction can never out-do fact when it comes to true drama.

Yes, some units may disappear, but that does not mean that we are not replacing them with new units. If a unit is taken out, then it will be only so a more important unit can fill its place. I thought that was clear in my post, obviously I underestimated my audience.

Finally, I'm not entirely sure where my (and I paraphrase), "It is better to use more complicated analysis to reach a conclusion on Alexander's cavalry wing, rather than your own romantic attempt", was turned into (and again I paraphrase) "Alexander had weak cavalry". Please at least attempt to respond with some semblence of intelligence, it just raises the tone of the entire proceeding.

For a conclusion, I find your whole intrepretation of EB to be laughably twisted into your own ape-like aspirations toward history. I would ignore it and let it be, but unfortunately I find your entire manner to be offensive as well. I couldn't name one part, but ever since you started posting recently, I have been drawn to your posts with a sense of revulsion. In otherwords I find you neither interesting nor ignorable - the worst kind of bore.

Foot

Daos
04-24-2008, 20:26
snip

Foot


Yeah right. If you think I'm gonna read all that you're kinda overestimating your importance. If you can't handle criticism maybe you shouldn't be talking to people. Go back into your little cage for now...

Teleklos Archelaou
04-24-2008, 21:14
~:wave:

fenix3279
04-24-2008, 21:22
^
You really underestimate the importance of shutting the hell up and listening, don't you? No one here knows what you seek to achieve with your blind idiocy nor does anyone even care. You stated what you wanted to see in EBII and were shot down for good reasons. Boo Hoo. You'll get over it.

fenix3279
04-24-2008, 21:25
^
You really underestimate the importance of shutting the hell up and listening, don't you? No one here knows what you seek to achieve with your blind idiocy nor does anyone even care. You stated what you wanted to see in EBII and were shot down for good reasons. Boo Hoo. You'll get over it.
Aw, Teleklos, you booted him already didn't you?
Oh well. Just disregard my last post everyone.

As for Daos

:rtwno: off with his head.

Sir Edward
04-24-2008, 21:25
Wow, so after reading that I feel like apologizing on behalf of the EB fan base, some real block heads out there you have to deal with. Also let me add Iberia or/and Bosphorean Kingdoms would be a nice hybrid combination of HA and phalanx and would liven up the scene in the black sea region.

abou
04-24-2008, 21:45
You don't need to apologize for anything, Sir Edward. Depending on what we do decide on, I hope you'll appreciate it.

russia almighty
04-24-2008, 22:07
Only thing I really want to see is an Eastern Celt faction.


More of a what if; if, Nubia at this time had more heavily armored soldiers (say the upper middle and upper classes wore scale and quilted/lino thorax armor) would their probably be a faction there, or, some sort of regional unit?

chairman
04-24-2008, 23:34
Russia Almighty: the Boii seem like the perfect solution to your desire for an eastern Celtic faction and everyone's wish for something to stop the Sweboz.

Revised list based on EB Team comments:

Boii

Numidia

Mauretania

Gandhara

Belgae

Pergamon

Arevaci

Bosphoran Kingdom

There are still two more slots that I haven't figured out yet. However, Tellos' very tantalizing comment has me wondering....

Chairman

Hax
04-24-2008, 23:41
Hee hee.

I love to see how everyone tries to sort out EB comments, it's just great. ;)

Foot
04-25-2008, 00:19
My favourite part of the game is just dropping hints here and there and waiting for people to pick up on them. Oh, the red herring.

Foot

General Appo
04-25-2008, 07:28
Well, there´s likely going to be at least 2 Numidian-like factions, as someone said that there were going to be two new Semitic factions. Unless of course they add Qataban, Hadramut or Libyans to the game, but I just don´t see that happening. Which doesn´t really mean anything at all, but still.
I seem to rememeber someone saying that Nabateans and the like won´t be in the game, but don´t take my word for it.
Just like to add, that people should really think for a moment before posting what they want in the game, and I´m not just talking about last page. A lot of people post things like "I´d like a eastern/baltic/numidian/celtic/bartrix/what the fu*k ever faction", without considering that what you want is really not what the EB team is concerned about. If you want a Boii faction for instant, try to give some evidence as to why it should be in the game, preferably historical one, but I guess a little gameplay reasoning wouldn´t hurt either. Or even better, don´t bother at all. They´ve already chosen 9 out of 10 factions, so most likely either your faction has already been chosen or been rejected.

Megalos
04-25-2008, 07:39
Did anyone tell the fans we are changing the start date yet?

abou
04-25-2008, 08:11
Not yet. Something about EB40K just doesn't have that ring.

Mithridates VI Eupator
04-25-2008, 11:30
Oops!:oops:

My unfortunate inclusion of an ahistorical faction in one of my posts seems to have been the start of quite some debate.

I feel that I must, at this point, stress the fact that I do not, in any way, agree with the remarks made by that Daos-guy, and that I apologize if anyone thinks that I am trying to make the EB-team include the factions I listed, or in any way demanding anything. I was merely listing some factions I found interesting. The EB team should include whatever factions they want, and, as I have said before, I will gladly accept theese, even if not a singel one was on my list!
After all, EB is the best thing that's happened to computer gaming since... computers.

Krusader
04-25-2008, 14:03
Oops!:oops:

My unfortunate inclusion of an ahistorical faction in one of my posts seems to have been the start of quite some debate.

I feel that I must, at this point, stress the fact that I do not, in any way, agree with the remarks made by that Daos-guy, and that I apologize if anyone thinks that I am trying to make the EB-team include the factions I listed, or in any way demanding anything. I was merely listing some factions I found interesting. The EB team should include whatever factions they want, and, as I have said before, I will gladly accept theese, even if not a singel one was on my list!
After all, EB is the best thing that's happened to computer gaming since... computers.

No need. You came with your suggestions in a good manner IMO.

Belisarius12
04-25-2008, 19:11
i would like pergamum and numidia it will be sooo cool

General Appo
04-25-2008, 19:26
Did you read my post!? Or any other post in this entire thread? Arrgghh!!!! *headbangs the nearest tree*
Okay, I&#180;ll try to be nice. Indeed, Pergamon and a Numdian faction would be quite enjoyable both to play as and play against, however the measure of enjoyability is not the most important factor the EB team takes into account when deciding upon which factions to include into their mod. However, I am quite certain that at least a Numidian faction will be in the game, and possibly Pergamon as well, even though Pergamon would be quite difficult to properly portray, since the city did not rise to prominence until quite some time into EB&#180;s timeframe.
A Numidian faction (and by that I include Mauretania and the likes, even though I know there&#180;s a difference) is perhaps according to my very own opinion the most important faction to add to EB2, both since representing the various African tribes and peoples as eleutheroi, and thereby incapable of offensive actions, is quite ahistorical. It would also help prevent the early founding of the Carthaginian African empire that often occurs in EB1, since Carthage is virtually unthreatened in western Africa, apart from the occasional Ptolemaic incursion and human interference.
Oh well, we shall see.

Hax
04-25-2008, 19:30
Oh well, we shall see.

You will indeed ;D

General Appo
04-25-2008, 20:21
Unless... *shifty eyes*
Unless by the time EB2 is out I&#180;be done so many shifty eyes they won&#180;t stop shifting, and so I can&#180;t see anymore. Oh well, I doubt that will ever happen. Unless... *shifty eyes*

alatar
04-25-2008, 20:40
Yeah right. If you think I'm gonna read all that you're kinda overestimating your importance. If you can't handle criticism maybe you shouldn't be talking to people. Go back into your little cage for now...

It's a shame about people like him, it grates the EB team, distracts them, and makes them less likely to listen to fans with their opinions.

However, it was quite amusing that he didn't even bother reading Foots well written and reasonable post.


Ah well...

On topic, would not a indian faction (even as a satrap) need a new faction slot to be portrayed well?

General Appo
04-25-2008, 21:06
I assume you mean culture slot? Becasue it is indeed pretty hard to add a new faction without giving them an faction slot.

Hax
04-25-2008, 21:16
You could give them the eastern_greek things though.

General Appo
04-25-2008, 21:40
Yes, that would be most appropiate for a possible Maryuan satrap faction.
*shifty eyes* Sorry, totally uncalled for, I know.

Cartaphilus
04-28-2008, 14:18
My suggestions are:

- "Celtiberians": Arevaci et alia (Numantia). Remember that the Celtiberians were the most influential ethnic group in pre-Roman Iberia.
- Numidia/Mauretania (to difficult the carthaginian expansion, that was historically limited in the coastal regions). The "moors" have always been there.
- Pergamon (there are no critical historical reasons to reject this faction, by the way I don't think that the start year should necessarily be the 270BC).
- Syracuse: Why not? I don't understand the objections to reject this faction. All that you can say against Syracuse should be applied to most part of factions (only the Romani and the Greeks are historically well known, and Syracuse was a greek city).

But also I will welcome:

- Belgae
- Regnum Bosphori.
- Boii.
- Goidelics.
- Thracia.
- Galatia.
- Another german tribe.
- Etc.


PD: But I don't want new boring HA or phalanx factions. LOL.

Ludens
04-28-2008, 18:22
- Pergamon (there are no critical historical reasons to reject this faction, by the way I don't think that the start year should necessarily be the 270BC).
You may think so, but the team might not agree ~;) . The year 272 B.C. has been extensively researched to create as accurate as possible starting positions: they would have to do that again if they'd changed the year. Also, if they chose a later date, they'd probably have to remove the Epeirotes, who never recovered from the loss of Phyrus.

As for the exclusion of Syracuse and Pergamon, there are actually some good reasons. One is a limited number of faction slots, the other that they were not quite as powerful as their neighbours. It's questionable whether they could have managed serious expansion (although Pergamon certainly tried). That said, both are mentioned as candidates for inclusion in EB2.

Hax
04-28-2008, 22:15
- Regnum Bosphori.

In Latin? I believe you mean the Basileion ton Bosphorou, if my Greek doesn't fail. Just Bosphoros will do, though.

General Appo
04-29-2008, 07:15
It's questionable whether they could have managed serious expansion (although Pergamon certainly tried).

*cough* Lusotannan, Sweboz, Koinon Hellenon, Epeiros, Sab´yn and Casse *cough*.

Cartaphilus
04-29-2008, 11:32
*cough* Lusotannan, Sweboz, Koinon Hellenon, Epeiros, Sab´yn and Casse *cough*.

That's the point.

These factions (and a "few" more - indeed, all the factions except the Romans, the Carthaginians, the Parthians and the bigger Hellenistic Realms) have the same "problem" than Syracuse and Pergamon (and others).
It is unfair and absurd to refuse Syracuse&co, and admit the others mentioned by General Appo.