New factions?

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

*sigh*

There are loads of possible factions (bithynia, Odrysiai, cappadocia, mauretania, Aitolian leauge, Atropatene, Caucasian Iberia, whatever) that have recieved marginal, if any, attention in this thread. Meanwhile, Meroë, Muryans, Yuhezi, Caledonians and their likes are suggested over and over again, despite the fact that the EB-team explicitly has declared that they will not be included.

So, please: Make your suggestions (preferably motivated by facts), discuss their viability gameplay-wise/History-wise, make examples for their unit-roosters...
...but for the love of god, leave the Nubians to their destiny!!!:wall:

No offense, people, but its getting repetitive...

[Foot]

This is a Faction suggestion thread. If you want to discuss Meroe I suggest you find somewhere else to do so.

No one on the EB team has suggested that they were african savages, but we've had enough of people bringing them up on these boards.

Foot

[Sir Edward]

It would be interesting to hear why Nabataia has more viability than Meroe, afaik it was kingdom weaker to Kushite kingdom in all aspects whether it comes to population, military or wealth. I understand that some members of EB team might be a bit tired of this issue but that does not approve them to speak about Kushites like they were a bunch of dirty african savages. They were in fact more developed than some of the factions currently in EB. I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2, but it is mostly due to engine restrictions and not their "viability".

Sorry to say that but Meroe is going to be mentioned again and again considering how uncertain the facts about Meroe are and the number of people who would like to play as such an exotic faction.




Okay so I personally am fed up with your whining and moaning, maybe the moderators will delete this post but I got to get it off my chest.
You wonder why Nabataia is being talked about and Meroe is not being considered? It's because TA let slip (red herring (?)) that there will be four factions in the culture that presently contains Carthage and Saba. Nabataia would fall into this grouping Meroe wouldn't even come close. While I personally wouldn't include either in my top 10 wish list there it is. Foot stated point blank in post #280 of this thread that due to culture restrictions Meroe could never be presented properly. Its not about military makeup or in game survival or the map lacking regions where they would historically likely to expand. What it come down to is if you want to see Meroe presented as having a ruling light skin family. Is that how you wish Meroe to be presented because with the culture limits that what you would end up with?

And as far as the large number of people you claim wanting to play this faction a search through this very thread can only find 15 people who are willing to voice this opinion of including in the 10 new factions slot Meroe/Kush/Axum/Nubia.



Majid-il Romani, dominique, subutan, Jolt, Abou!, Aztec Warrior, Jiulius, brymht, Maksimus, Monte66, Son of Purin, The Abyssinian, Arris_Aurelius_Magnus, azzbaz, PseRamesses.



And amongst those 15 almost half of those are from accounts, six in fact, that have posted less than 25 times in the forums. And while a couple of these may be legitimate accounts that deserve to have their thoughts heard, the vast majority appear to be puppet accounts or trolls & their real purpose should be questioned.


Subutan (3), Abou! (2), Aztec Warior (24), Jiulius (4), the Abyssinian (3), Arris_Aurelius_Magnus (3).


There are in fact more posts in this thread ruling out the inclusion of Meroe than there are people who have posted wanting them. So I am really at a loss where you are coming from with "how uncertain the facts about Meroe are", they are very certain it isn't going to be included as a faction in EBII.

[Megas Methuselah]

It's probably already been suggested, but Massalia would be sweet. Of course, this is most unlikely, as there probably isn't a lot of historical information regarding the city, and Western Europe is crowded enough as it is. I just thought I'd let the word "Massalia" hang in the air for a while...

:yes:

EDIT: Massalia.

Massalia.

Maaa...saaaa....liaaa...

[Turnus]

Majid-il Romani, dominique, subutan, Jolt, Abou!, Aztec Warrior, Jiulius, brymht, Maksimus, Turnus, Monte66, Son of Purin, The Abyssinian, Arris_Aurelius_Magnus, azzbaz, PseRamesses.



And amongst those 16 almost half of those are from accounts, seven in fact, that have posted less than 25 times in the forums. And while a couple of these may be legitimate accounts that deserve to have their thoughts heard, the vast majority appear to be puppet accounts or trolls & their real purpose should be questioned.


Yeah you should probably remove my name from that list, seeing as I merely said that it's clear that there won't be a Nubian faction. And because I said that, it must be clear to you that I am actually a "puppet account" for someone who really doesn't want the Nubians to be included.

Next time please actually read people's posts. Merely because I don't have many posts on the .org doesn't mean I'm a puppet account or an ignoramus (I am actually a coder and scripter of Hegemonia: City States). Rather, it probably means that I spend more time on the TWC...

To stay on topic, one of the issues with city-states (such as Syracuse, Kyrene, Massalia etc.) is whether they would make for a fun/historical campaign. They never really expanded to create a large empire, but, (as the mod likes the idea of 'changing history') this isn't the biggest issue. It is rather that it is hard to imagine states so inwardly focused to carve out such empires, and this could make game experience much less enjoyable. I find that in many EB campaigns, when one's empire has become quite large, and their historical enemies have been defeated, the game becomes less enjoyable as it is by this point so far seperated from history that everything just seems meaningless. For example, in a Carthaginian campaign, once Spain and Rome have been conquered, you can't help but think: What now? With city-states and possibly other small factions, it would perhaps seem this way from the start, as these cities historically maintained their own borders without the need for RTW-style conquest. Would it be realistic/enjoyable to conquer the world with such factions?

Another major issue with this is the behaviour of the AI. Imagine if you were playing as the Romani, and, entering into Gaul, found it completely under the control of the 'Massalia' faction. Or if you started a Sweboz campaign hoping for a migration to Italy and a war against the Romans, but, on arriving there, found it under the dominion of the city-state Syracuse. I think the inclusion of such factions is not needed for either historical or gameplay reasons. Factions with historical victory conditions (e.g. Romani conquering the Mediterranean, Parthians conquering the Seleucid lands) or reasonable victory conditions (e.g. Gallic factions needing to have control of all Gallic lands, the Treveri needing both Gallic and Germanic lands) make for both more realistic and more enjoyable mods. Of course, seeing as we have quite a few slots to fill, it would perhaps be good to use one of them for such a faction (perhaps Massalia). Any thoughts?

[Son of Perun]

Seems I have to quote myself:

I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2

I didn't want to bring this stuff back but it really makes me pissed when someone writes things like Meroe is "bullshit" and "completely below the military horizon". I researched a bit on Meroe and from the limited knowledge I know that this simply isn't true. But yeah, Foot is right, it is no longer topic for this thread. I apologize for making the mess :embarassed:

So once more for those people who have some problems with reading:

I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2

[Ludens]

It would be like when Poland sent a cavalry force against German tanks.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_charges_and_propaganda), that's a propaganda myth.

[Parkev]

To stay on topic, one of the issues with city-states (such as Syracuse, Kyrene, Massalia etc.) is whether they would make for a fun/historical campaign. They never really expanded to create a large empire, but, (as the mod likes the idea of 'changing history') this isn't the biggest issue. It is rather that it is hard to imagine states so inwardly focused to carve out such empires, and this could make game experience much less enjoyable.

Can anyone else think of a rather notable power of this period that may or may not have begun as a city state (that may or may have been built on seven hills). :charge:

But seriously, I can see where you're coming from, it does make a lot of sense but I think its really function of how the game works. I don't we'd have a problem imagining Massila exerting influence on some smaller towns down the road, and opening some colonies along the coast, but there's no way to represent this is the game. Its either stay in your city, or march hundreds of kilometers and conquer a vast tract of land occupied by numerous Gallic tribe. There isn't much of a middle step.

Going on a bit of tangent, I think you can apply this to any faction (Hayastan, Saba, Casse) that start with only one city. You just go conquer that first city, even if you don't have the same kind of reasoned excuse (I guess something along the lines of "He called your sister fat and to rub it in he stole all of your goats; now, to reclaim your honour you must go subjugate his people") that is developed as role-playing builds up later in the game.

[abou]

Seems I have to quote myself:


I didn't want to bring this stuff back but it really makes me pissed when someone writes things like Meroe is "bullshit" and "completely below the military horizon". I researched a bit on Meroe and from the limited knowledge I know that this simply isn't true. But yeah, Foot is right, it is no longer topic for this thread. I apologize for making the mess :embarassed:

So once more for those people who have some problems with reading:

Okay, think I'm wrong? Prove it. Give me a detailed analysis.

Also, I didn't say one damn thing about "dirty savages". Throwing words around like that is not cool, Son of Perun. Not cool.


According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_charges_and_propaganda), that's a propaganda myth.Sorry, Ludens. WWII isn't my specialty.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Okay, Folks!

As Foot said, this is a suggestion thread, so I thought I'd just continue to make cases for factions that haven't been discussed that much.

I agree that this one might be a bit of a stretch, especially given the arguments that have been presented against Massilia and other small city states, but I thought I'd just throw it in there anyway.
Maybe it has already been rejected officialy by the EB-team, but I have not been able to locate any post saying this, so if that is the case, just inform me of this fact, and I will speak of in no more.:beam:



Aetolian Leauge

The Aetolian League was initially formed ca. 367 b.C, by the leading cities of Aetolia to counter Spartan power. The leading city of the league was Thebes, despite its location in Boeotia. In the late 300:s, early 200:s, it gained power by opposing both the Achaean League and the Macedonians. The Aitolians defeated the Celtic invasion in 279 b.C, and thus saved the temple of Apollon at Delphi from being looted, meanwhile the League expanded territory-wise, and gained control over areas outside the original constraints of Aetolia.

During the 3rd century b.C, tensions grew between the Aechaeans and the Aitolians, reaching its climax during the Aetolian war (220-217), where the Aetolians were forced to fight an alliance of Aechaeans and Macedonians. By this time, however, they had gained much territory, expanding into both Boeotia and large portions of Thessaly, thus controlling most of central Greece.

The war resulted in the Aetolians in their turn forming an alliance with the Romans, and Aetolian forces were present at Kynoskefalai in 197 b.C, where they helped the Romans defeat the Macedonian army of Philip V.

The continued Roman intervention in Greek affairs made the Aetolians more antagonistic to the Roman cause, though, and they sided with Antiochos III during his war with Rome in 190. Antiochos was defeated at Magnesia, though, and the Aetolians were forced to sue for peace.

This resulted in them being forced to pay heavy fines, and many Aetolian warriors started selling their services as mercenaries. The power of the League was thus broken, and its territory was soon incorporated into the roman province of Achaea.

The Aetolian League was not ruled by kings, but by a gathering of the leaders of the cities.

The Aetolians would start with only Aetolia, and would thus have a very complicated starting position. Their best bets would be either to try to expand at the expense of the Macedonians (Demetreias, Korinthos), or else, they would have to find alternate routes of expansion, such as Crete, Sicily or Thrace. (I think they had some interests in Crete in reality too, actually.)

The Aetolians along the coasts were very Hellenized, but inland, the land was hevily influenced by Illyran culture and traditions. Thus, their units might be a combination of classical hoplites and some Illyrian units, and some Macedonian-style units, which would become available should they expand in such a direction. The fact that Aetolia is a mountainous region would result In relatively few an light cavalry types, though.

There are several negative sides to this faction, though:
Their initial position is a very difficult one, surrounded by several larger factions, some of them hostile, and with basically nowhere to expand. Thus, the AI might have some problems with getting anywhere, and might be swallowed up way too quickly. Also, there are already quite a few factions fighting for dominance over Hellas, so it might get a bit too crowded with 4 factions, dispersed over rather few provinces.
This could be helped, maybe, by adding a new province to Greece. This would, of course, require the deletion of another province on the map, and this would perhaps be stretching it a bit too far…:sweatdrop:

Anyway, I thought a new faction suggestion would make a welcome break from the eternal discussion on Meroë…

[keravnos]

The Aetolians along the coasts were very Hellenized, but inland, the land was hevily influenced by Illyran culture and traditions. Thus, their units might be a combination of classical hoplites and some Illyrian units, and some Macedonian-style units, which would become available should they expand in such a direction. The fact that Aetolia is a mountainous region would result In relatively few an light cavalry types, though.


What kind of ... sources do you have for this?
Aitolians spoke the same NW greek (that Epeirotes and Makedones also used) that was so intelligible to Southern Greeks that they just couldn't get it. Phillipos V of Makedonia wondered whether they spoke greek at all, that is how heavily accented they were. It has been suggested that NW Greek was a Dorian Greek Idiom and this seems to be the truth seeing that Dorians from Elis (where Olympia is located) originally came from Aitolia and Akarnania.

Thebes was the seat of "Koinon Boioton" not of Aitolian league. It was an enemy of Aitolians before being beaten into a pulp by them by 240's or so.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

The sources that I have used are mainly various encyclopedias, primarily NE, which is the swedish equivalent of Encyclopedia Britannica. I have, however, used some Wikipedia as well. Didn't find as much info on this as on cappadocia, though.

I admit that my "research" is rudimentary, at best, so please inform me if anything is missing, or any obvious mistakes:yes:

However, to clarify some things, that might have been vague...

When I said that Thebes was the leading city, I did not mean as the capital of Aetolia, but rather, as the leading city of the coalision that opposed sparta when the League was firs formed. however, this is not how it appears in the text. Sorry 'bout that... The Aetolians did fight the Boiotians later, defeating them ca 245 b.C, I think... forgot to mention this, though:embarassed:. The important cities in Aetolia, I gather, were Thermon and Kalydon.

When it comes to the language, I am aware of this fact, however did not mention it.
I know that the "very" hellenized is going a bit to far, but what I meant was that the military would be of a hellenic type.
In general, I refered to how I imagined their soldiers would have been, not so much their culture or ethnicity

Anyway, thanks for the comments!

Cheers!

EDIT: concerning the "Illyrian" part; the Aetolians were not Illyrians, however the population was quite intermixed with Illyrians, it seems.

EDIT2: Still didn't seem right, so I edited the bit about language and hellenism bit.

Man, what a mess...:sweatdrop:

[azzbaz]

I reckon the Nabataeans should get a go, check out this website if you havent already it's excellent
http://nabataea.net/ehistory.html

[Che Roriniho]

I reckon the Nabataeans should get a go, check out this website if you havent already it's excellent
http://nabataea.net/ehistory.html

I do have a feeliing they've been suggested and rejected, but it would be an interesting rival to Saba in a rather large gap. We do however, need a eastern european faction, because there is a ruly HUGE gap there.

[Pinkkiller]

hmm will Nabataea be in EBII?

[Dumbass]

hmm will Nabataea be in EBII?

Yes no, maybe. I don't know. Can you repeat the question...

[AlexanderSextus]

are the Boii gonna get put in? with 4 eleutheroi provinces representing them already it seems as if they'd have a nice start at 272...

[General Appo]

4 Boii starting regions? Which are these if I may ask? If the Boii do appear as an faction in EB2 (quite likely if you ask me) I´d say that they´d start with Mrogbonna. At least I think that´s the region I´m thinking of. I´m sure they don´t have 4 different regions to start with.

[Fondor_Yards]

I remember reading a while back that they controlled Pannonia in addition to Mrogbonna during this time, so they probably have both*don't quote me on this*. The other nearby cities with Satres/othersupergenerals guarding them would probably disappear, since the Boii would full fill their purpose.

As for my picks, mine are basically the repeated favorites, even if some won't be getting in *Boii, Galatians, Bosphorians, Belgae, Celtiberians, Massalia, Crimean Scythians, a Goidili tribe*Erains?*, yes I like the barbarians, most good 'civilized' states are already in.* And before someone says the Scythians and Goidili most likely won't be in, I know I did actually read the whole 26 pages.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

im all for the barbarians!!!! The more the merrier!!!!!:2thumbsup: a bit of a celtophile myself hehehe!!!!
I enjoy all the barbarian factions the most!!!!!!!!!:beam:

I would have to ask for the boii of course I'm gonna say Galatians but I am a hundred percent sure they are not going to be in it. The celtic kingdom of Tylis (cant remember if that was the trocmi or not) 4 the belgae 5 another iberian tribe like the Editani 6 atropatene 7 Kingdom of Cimmerian Bosphoros 8 another german tribe to flesh out the area 9 a numidian tribe (it will just get steam rolled by carthage though) 10 Palmyra or (Tadmor) it was independent from the seleucid empire.
Im not sure it deserves a slot but the city state has always interested me!!!!

[Visitor13]

Will be in:

1. Pergamon

Almost sure to be in:

2. Celtiberia
3. Numidia
4. The Belgae
5. The Boii

Will probably be in:

6. An Illyrian faction (the Breuci?)
7. Scythia
8. The Bosphoran Kingdom

Might be in:

9. Syracuse
10. Kyrene
11. Atropatene
12. Gandhara
13. Bithynia (hopefully not, as Asia Minor is too crowded already)
14. Cappadocia (as above)
15. Another Germanic faction (the Bastarnae?)

I guess Kyrene and Atropatene will be chosen. I base this list on the major empty spaces on the EB map.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I think someone from the team said that Kyrene wouldn't make it. I could be mistaken, though...

But, yeah, I'd guess celtiberians, numidians and belgae are rather safe bets. Boii as well.

We will see in due time...

[General Appo]

One (or two) numidian factions is I believe almost certain, given that Numidia was probably the faction closest to being included in EB1. They´ve probably just ain´t got enough work done of them to make a Stele.

[Visitor13]

I don't think two Numidian factions, or a Numidian and a Mauri faction are a good idea. It's going to be hard enough for one such faction not to get clobbered by Carthage.

I wonder what the Numidian heavy units are going to be, if there are going to be any at all, apart from mercs.

Just read the thread again and I see that Illyria, Syracuse and Kyrene will most likely not make it in. Pity about the latter two, both are between rocks and hard places and would therefore be fun to play. Illyria would only get in the much-needed way for Dacia, fair enough.

Some sort of an Alpine faction, like the Noricii or the Helvetii...

Personally I'd love to hear what factions, except Pergamon, have been decided on thus far; I'm not too big on surprises and wouldn't complain even if I didn't like some of the choices.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I don't think two Numidian factions, or a Numidian and a Mauri faction are a good idea. It's going to be hard enough for one such faction not to get clobbered by Carthage.

Well, historically, the Numidians weren't united, at least not until under Massinissa and those guys, so they might be more accurately depicted by two factions, such as one Numidian and one Mauretanian (or two Numidian). In fact, the various Numidian tribes often fought eachother , for example the enemies Syphax and Massinissa, where Massinisa first joined the Carthaginians, and then switched sides to the Romans, prompting Syphax to ally himself with the Carthaginians, after first having been neutral.
Another example might be the Jugurthine wars, when the Numidians and Mauretanians first were allies, but the Mauretanians betrayed the Numidians to the Romans.

Given that Carthage will be occupied on other fronts as well, such as Iberia, I think that two factions could actually have a chance of establishing a powerful kingdom of their own. The skirmisher-nature of their units might be able to take quite a heavy toll on the slow carthaginian units as well



I wonder what the Numidian heavy units are going to be, if there are going to be any at all, apart from mercs.

During the later stages of the EB-timeframe, I think the romans trained some Numidians in heavy infantry tactics, which might be represented by a rerform. They could possibly have some hellenic-style units, inspired by Punic military, though. Otherwise, I believe that they will primarily have light troops... and, of course, elephants!!!:elephant:

[Turnus]

During the later stages of the EB-timeframe, I think the romans trained some Numidians in heavy infantry tactics, which might be represented by a rerform.
This supposedly occured in 213 BCE (Livy 24.48). Statorius was hired by Syphax to organise an infantry force (not neccessarily 'heavy' in the manner of Roman forces). It is reported in the 1st century BCE that the Numidians still used this organisation (I believe in Sallust/Caesar). In game, this could perhaps be represented as an event, similar to the Cataphract reforms. Perhaps if the Numidians are allied with Rome against Carthage, they could "hire" Statorius through an event and the reform would take place.

[Majd il-Romani]

This supposedly occured in 213 BCE (Livy 24.48). Statorius was hired by Syphax to organise an infantry force (not neccessarily 'heavy' in the manner of Roman forces). It is reported in the 1st century BCE that the Numidians still used this organisation (I believe in Sallust/Caesar). In game, this could perhaps be represented as an event, similar to the Cataphract reforms. Perhaps if the Numidians are allied with Rome against Carthage, they could "hire" Statorius through an event and the reform would take place.

yeah kinda like a

reform trigger: Numidia (massilya)

must be allied with romans, enemies with carthage
at least year 213 BC
fought 5 battles against Carthaginian Heavy infantry whch were defeats

[Aemilius Paulus]

How many unit slots are filled in EB I? Because if the number is close to the maximum of 520, then I would rather have the same number of factions in EB II. I would rather have the 21 (including Rebels) factions with lots of units than something like 30 factions with little unit variety. I believe a game should have quality, not quantity. If no new factions over the 21 existing can be added, then I think the EB should scrap the Aediu or the Arverni, for just one Gallic faction. Also, please don't add any more Hellenic factions! There is already more than enough to choose from. However, since there is a limit of 520 units, you could technically have 21 factions with a lot of unit variety and then have another 10 that only use the units from the 21 factions. This way you'll have both quality and quantity. The more factions you have, the more historically accurate the game is. After all, there was no such things as the Rebels (in RTW sense) in history. Every territory was owned by one nation or another with a possible exception of a couple of really desolate places, such as deserts, deep forests, and high mountain ranges.

[Foot]

There is a max of 31 factions in EBII. There is a max of 500 units in EBII. All factions in EBI will be in EBII. All this information and more can be gleamed from reading past posts in this thread and also the EBII FAQ, under Important Information.

Foot

[General Appo]

If no new factions over the 21 existing can be added, then I think the EB should scrap the Aediu or the Arverni, for just one Gallic faction. Also, please don't add any more Hellenic factions! There is already more than enough to choose from..


Sigh. When will people get this? The EB team can´t just say "lets add a faction there" and "lets not add one there" because it would be cool to have one there and uncool to have one at another place.
Though I am in no way part of the EB team I dare to say that the Gauls will never be represented as a single faction, because that would be grossly unhistorical.

The "rebels" in EB are called Eleutheroi for a reason. It means the Independents, and that is what they are. Independent tribes, cities and people not controlled by the major nations, tribes and people the EB team have decided to represent as a faction. Each and every one of the Eleutheroi regions is independent from the other ones, and the EB team far from wishes to imply that they are all rebels against the "real" factions. Every single tribe, city and people is its own faction, but since the engine limits are what they are it is not possible to represent this through making every single little Gallic tribe or Greek city-state a faction.

Of course, this is just what I have gathered from longtime reading of EB team members posts and statements, and is not official EB stand.

[Smeel]

I might be the only one thinking this, but I don't see the need of putting 10 brand new factions in the game :dizzy2:

As I see the current Faction setup for EBI the perfect one, adding new factions should have a clear emphasis on game balancing, Grey death, Yellow death, GREEN death anyone?

Since it already is a shortage of unit slots, this is my thougts on the new factions:

1. making some "tribe" factions, for Spain, Germania and getai. This will certanly balance Sweboz and getai, since these parts of the map are the most desolate. And it wont use a lot of unit slots either. :sweatdrop:

2. Take one faction slot to represent the "Mini-factions" that won't be in the game even after the new slots been filled, exactly like Roma Surrectum. It certanly seems like a great idea of making some of the independent regions more challenging. Can't argue about this one though, I have only played RS for like 30 minutes, since eb made me addicted to historicaly correct... everything :laugh4:

3. I know this idea have been bashed by the team many times before, but stick with me for this one.
With not using all the faction for new factions, you could *gasp* use a couple of slots for shadow factions representing schisms and rebellions, for the romans seleucids and Ptolemies.
(please don't kill me)

Just my thoughts, and thanks eb team for making this mod. :beam:

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, so I will certainly not bash your ideas, however, I'm going to make a short counter-argument. Mind you, though, that this is just my personal opinion, as I am by no means an EB-member...

EB is all about historical accuracy, and just like the fact that the game might be somewhat imbalanced, the real world was never "balanced", in any way. There were huge, mighty empires, and small, insignificant kingdoms and tribes. None the less, they did all exist, and they all affected the world in one way or another. If they were left out, or replaced by some generic faction in an area that just seemed like it needed a faction, not only would the variety that new and realistic factions give to the game be lost, but the whole concept of recreating a world that, as much as possible, resembles the way the world actually looked, would be ruined. The additional factions will serve to more accurately portray the world, as it appeared in 272 b.C, which will be more vivid and lifelike, if there are actually real factions controlling their respective parts of the map, and not just generic "tribes" added in for game balance. Indeed, the limitations of the game engine makes it impossible to portray the world exactly as it was, given that there are an infinite amount of exogenous factors that impact the world, and that cannot be accurately recreated, but I feel that 30 factions, on the campaign map will give a much more enjoyable, and realistic, gaming experience.

And as always, there is the old saying: The more, the merrier!

[Cartaphilus]

I read all this huge thread (again) and I repeat, please:

1-. Think about the possibility of another germanic faction.

2-. And two celtic factions more would be great: Belgae and Boii. But most important, remove the Aedui from Mediolanum.

3-. Don't forget the numidian and some new faction in Iberia.

[General Appo]

But most important, remove the Aedui from Mediolanum.


I am no expert on this matter, but weren´t the Insubres and such in Insubramog allied to the Aedui? If you have any evidence why the Aedui Confederation should not be in control of Mediolanum please state so, in order that I not be left with the false impression that you are simply stating a wish from gameplay perspective, without taking the historical reality into consideration.

[Cartaphilus]

Well, if you don't want to remove them at least put some type IV or III gov. building (or whatever) there but the Aedui (as all barbarian factions) were not so strong and cohesive than in the game.

When Romans conquered the land of the insubres I don't believe that half of Gaul crossed the Alps to fight for their distant brothers.

The division of the celts were at least their doom. If they could be unite now we speak celtic languages not romanic or germanic ones.

The unity of Gaul was only possible (and not complete) in Vergingetorix time and as an desperate reaction against roman conquest, not in 272 BC.


I believe that the starting position of Aedui and Arverni are a bit overpowered, the Casse and the Sweboz have starting positions more accurate to what the barbarian tribes were.

[Foot]

Right. I mean you're right. How could a barbaric race who couldn't even live in cities (losers) create a government system that allowed the autonomous control of several tribes under one larger tribal confederation. They are all just a bunch of Liberals (in the American sense) and wasters pulling in different directions and never looking out for the community. Only the holy civilisations of Greece and Rome were able to govern large areas.

Or wait, perhaps the idea that barbarians are uncivilised, unable to perform even the simplest administrative duty, is complete crap. Indeed one might even further be able to entertain the prospect that large confederations of tribes sharing a common language (if not dialect) and culture might actually be a rather strong form of government, allowing for a certain level of autonomy, but also centralised authority when the time is required. A sort of warrior democracy, where elected officials, answerable to their people, vote on higher matters in an Aedui council, or something.

But no, they were simple farm people. I mean yes, they could create the most influential form of armour in human history so far (chain-mail), an intricate and highly complicated design of rings, but they couldn't form a government capable of uniting large swathes of the gallic population, that would be just beyond them.

Right?

Foot

[Parkev]

Right?



:laugh4: You've made my day.

Foot, everyone knows that before the Romans there was no such thing as complex democratic cultured civilisations, capable of organising a capable mobile military force, personal hygeine and codifying an established legal system.

Haven't you ever played Rome: Total War?

[General Appo]

You just got trampled by da FOOT :whip:

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

But no, they were simple farm people. I mean yes, they could create the most influential form of armour in human history so far (chain-mail), an intricate and highly complicated design of rings, but they couldn't form a government capable of uniting large swathes of the gallic population, that would be just beyond them.

Right?

Foot

Indeed...

I think that the reason people tend to se Gauls as somehow "inferior" to the Romans, Greeks etc. is that the word "tribe" conjures up an image of savagery and disunity, and as the opposite of what we define as civilization. Whereas the civilization symbolizes unity, organization and sophistication, the tribes symbolize disunity, isolation and barbarism. This despite that the tribe is just another form of society, no less complex and ambitious than any other.
Thus, we tend to see the Gauls as a simple and unsophisticated people, without any form of organized society, while the Greeks of the same time are seen as a glorious example of civilization and sophistication. However, Greece in this era presents an equally disparate group of leauges and city-states, just as diverse and prone to infighting as the Gallic tribes. Yet, one is seen as a civilization, the other as a disunited group of tribes.
One of the great things about EB is that it has managed to wash off that barbarian "stamp" that the Gauls have carried, invented by ancient Greek and Roman authors, and reinforced by popular culture of our time in movies and games, and revealed to people the true coutenance of this facinating culture.
Hopefully, it will help people see the Celts, not as bearded savages clothed in animal hides, hitting each other over the head with clubs, but as the vibrant and complex civilization they really were.

[AlexanderSextus]

You guys are correct that the Aedui were sophisticated, but i think he was alluding to the fact that the Aedui had worse things to worry about at the time (*cough*Arverni*cough*) so They wouldn't have marched huge armies across the Alps to defend Medio.... happened to me a couple times in my first couple Roman campaigns, but oddly, not my current one.

[Foot]

As has been mentioned previously, the government system in EBI was not perfect, it is difficult to represent the subtleties of each individual state with regards its position in the faction as a whole. This will be improved in EBII. If you aren't happy about the gov in Medio then you can change it or even remove the province, but Medio was certainly part of the Aedui confederacy during this timeperiod, and whether the Aedui could or could not support it with troops is independent of this fact.

The UK, before WWII, maintained a treaty with Poland regardless of the fact that there was no plausible way it could deploy troops in fulfillment of the treaty if Poland was invaded. The treaty existed even still.

Foot

[Khazar_Dahvos]

Long live the celts!!!!!! I can see both sides of the debate but Foot is right!!!!! It is hard to represent things as they actually were within the limits of the engine!!!

[TheGlobalizer]

My 2 cents/pence/Euro-thingies:

If you're adding 10 factions, I'd rather see the map creep a bit to the east and bring in Indian and western Chinese factions than cramming a bunch of borderline-meaningless city-states to the game. I like the EB1.1 method of bulking up particular cities to reflect the independent city-state concept.

I'm not sure "Egypt"/yellow needs to be countered as much as rebalanced. I'm in my first EB campaign and they are literally sprinting through AS.

I like the idea of Meroe/Kush even if they get run over.

Numidia and Boii are obvious, I think.

[Foot]

We can't enlarge the map anymore than it currently is. This is because of the max number of settlements is 199 which we reached with the EBI map. Additionally the number of unit slots the number of culture slots the number of ... well you get the picture. The scope of what we can mod becomes more and more limited the further we extend the map.

Besides, I would hate it if the map extended so far, the game would lose focus and in an effort to improve scope we would lose depth.

Foot

[TheGlobalizer]

We can't enlarge the map anymore than it currently is. This is because of the max number of settlements is 199 which we reached with the EBI map. Additionally the number of unit slots the number of culture slots the number of ... well you get the picture. The scope of what we can mod becomes more and more limited the further we extend the map.

Besides, I would hate it if the map extended so far, the game would lose focus and in an effort to improve scope we would lose depth.

Foot

Understood -- if we all had supercomputers and the perfect gaming platform, we could play as native Americans, tribal Africans, Eskimos, kangaroos, dolphins, microbes, air, light...

I'm sure the team will make the right decisions.

[Sir Edward]

Understood -- if we all had supercomputers and the perfect gaming platform, we could play as native Americans, tribal Africans, Eskimos, kangaroos, dolphins, microbes, air, light...

I'm sure the team will make the right decisions.

I think you're trying to describe Spore there.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Understood -- if we all had supercomputers and the perfect gaming platform, we could play as native Americans, tribal Africans, Eskimos, kangaroos, dolphins, microbes, air, light...

I'm sure the team will make the right decisions.

Actually, we would still be waiting for EBII to come out in year 2050.

They are actually a mixed blessing the hard codes they are. At least in the quantity types as there are certain limits to what EB can be and therefore it might some day be ready.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sigh. When will people get this? The EB team can´t just say "lets add a faction there" and "lets not add one there" because it would be cool to have one there and uncool to have one at another place.
Though I am in no way part of the EB team I dare to say that the Gauls will never be represented as a single faction, because that would be grossly unhistorical.


It would indeed be grossly unhistorical, but then again, just about every barbarian faction was split between numerous tribes. Sweboz, Gauls, Iberians, Britons were all composed of different tribes and yet in EB, due to the faction limit, most of them are represented as one tribe.

[Foot]

The Sweboz were one tribe (though their province was inhabited by others as well). The Aedui and the Arverni were tribal confederations that lasted throughout our timeperiod. The Lusotannan were a single tribe, as was the Casse (based upon the Catevelluni). We've chosen tribes as factions, not some vanilla-esque Gallic faction, that was indeed ahistorical. The faction limit is not our problem (though it is still of course a problem). The problem is the game mechanics does not allow us to represent the many tribes that would have co-existed in a province together (and so province limit is a problem). It also does not allow us to represent, within a faction, the different tribes that still often acted independently (so that as the Sweboz expand it is not actually the Sweboz tribe that expand but rather their political and military influence over neighbouring tribes). However we do the best we can and add traits and ancillaries (and in EBII buildings) that allow the player to role-play the political situation that the game just does not allow for.

However to say that the tribal factions themselves in EBI are unhistorical is a gross misrepresentation of what they are and the work we've put into them.

Foot

[Cartaphilus]

You guys are correct that the Aedui were sophisticated, but i think he was alluding to the fact that the Aedui had worse things to worry about at the time (*cough*Arverni*cough*) so They wouldn't have marched huge armies across the Alps to defend Medio.... happened to me a couple times in my first couple Roman campaigns, but oddly, not my current one.

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Well, though the Aedui may have been occupied elsewhere, the insubres were still, part of the Aedui confederation.
With that type of logic, Rhodos shouldn't be part of the KH either, as it is doubtful wether the Spartans would have been able to send reinforcements, had they been invaded by the Seleucids, given that Pyrrhos was marching towards them in 272, and the Macedonians being as close as they were.

Still, such things happened...
Take, for instance, the Athenian expedition to sicily during the war with sparta, where they sent a fleet to support the small city of Segesta against the Syracusans, who were allied with the Spartans. The expedition failed, and in the end led to the Athenian defeat in the war, but such campaigns were sometimes undertaken.

The Gauls may not have had the same type of infrastructure the Romans had, but they were still capable of forming coalisions, such as the Aedui confederation, that were indeed a force to be reckoned with. Such Coalisions did also have the capability to make rather extensive campaigns. Also smaller tribes did have a rather complex organization for campaigning.
When they made a migrition in the 50's B.C, the Helvetii drew up lists of people and supplies for their march. The Aedui would probably have been able to do the same, had they decided to make a long distance campaign.

And, if I'm not mistaken, there were transalpine Gauls present at Telamon, so the Gauls were not limited to their direct tribal heartlands when it came to warfare.

[Cartaphilus]

Well, we have to wait till we see the new government system of EB II, that seems to be quite different than the current one.

But if EBII will keep Types (I for more cohesionate states, IV for lessers ones), think about changing the actual situation in Mediolanum, in Balearica et cetera.


In Telamon fought transalpine gauls, the famous Gaesatae mercenaries. But they fight for gold, not to defend an "hypothetic celtic nation" or any treaty. Of course the barbarians knew some kind of diplomacy, they were not like some sort of Conan the cimmerian, and they could be bound to their leaders in a different way than roman or greeks, think about the devotio iberica, the soldurii for the gauls and the comitatus for the germans.

[General Appo]

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?

Well, if you care to read about on these forums you will see that such often results in one getting trampled by da FOOT
Though of course admitting that you might be wrong can save you.

Of course, from a certain point of view you are correct, the Gauls weren´t quite as good at creating centralised goverments with a single strong authority, but this in no way hindered them from building strong states overall, they just did it a bit differently, what with the tribal system and all.

[Majd il-Romani]

how about samurai japan?

[Jolt]

how about samurai japan?

...?

This tops amongst the most non-sense posts I've seen, along with Abkosee's Bartix and that Hebrew defender guy's arguments.

[Mediolanicus]

Maybe he wants to get rid of Britain, because so little is known about the isles in the prehistory, and replace it by medieval Japan...

You can't argue it isn't a very original idea...

[Megas Methuselah]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Samurai Japan... Well, we could always get rid of the Roman Republic and replace Roma with Kyoto...:clown:

[AlexanderSextus]

better, more unique eleutheroi. I wanna send romans to Meroe and actually have trouble taking it. i mean, hey, Didnt Alexander HIMSELF, retreat from attacking nubia?


oh, and i'm not requesting Meroe be added, just made stronger as an eleutheroi state.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think I can safely inform everyone that the new factions will be released within 1-15 years.

[Turnus]

better, more unique eleutheroi. I wanna send romans to Meroe and actually have trouble taking it. i mean, hey, Didnt Alexander HIMSELF, retreat from attacking nubia?

He didn't even go into Upper Egypt...

[Tellos Athenaios]

It would indeed be grossly unhistorical, but then again, just about every barbarian faction was split between numerous tribes. Sweboz, Gauls, Iberians, Britons were all composed of different tribes and yet in EB, due to the faction limit, most of them are represented as one tribe.

Now, if you actually had played them and paid close enough attention to ethnicities you would see that indeed; that's not the exact case.

[Hax]

Sweboz, Gauls, Iberians, Britons

What the?

I'm pretty sure the factions you mean are the Sweboz, Arverni, Aedui, Lusotannan, Casse. Congratulations, you actually named one faction right. As Tellos stated, if you had actually played them (or did any kind of background research on them), you'd notice that what you are stating is not the case. They are not represented as one tribe, as the Aedui and Arverni were confederations.

[Celtic_Punk]

I think perhaps a Caledonian or Goillic clan would be a good change of pace, give something for the Casse to contend with for power in the Isles. Aswell a new clan in Spain or Germania would be good aswell. The Mediterranean has enough contenders I believe, and so does Asia, but North West Europe gets lonely with all the elutheroi areas.

[Raiuga]

Whats the problem of regions being overpowered with factions? In my opinion there should be more factions to make more pressure. I think it would be great for the game. Whats the fun of having a faction surrounded by a bunch of rebel cities with the nearest rival faction years away from it. It would be fun to see a bunch of tribes fighting for gaul, germany, all over the place. If you want a historical accurate game, do this (if the engine permits it =P ).

[Dumbass]

This is what I think will be the most likely faction list:

Boii - EB team has shown interest with this tribe, it was quite a major one. The Boii also is located in eastern europe and cisalpine gaul; the eleutheroi hotspots.

Erain with Goidilic reforms - All those splendid units and not a faction there? Bizarre is it not. Also provides competition with the Casse on the british isles which is quite decrepit as it stands.

Numidians/Kirtan - Empty eleutheroi desert, Carthage in dire need of competition there. Also a lot of Numidian units have been created.

Gandhara - Not the Mauryan Empire, just the allied city state. The EB team has shown interest in a single Indian city state. There are also already a lot of indian units.

Belgae - Interesting Gallic-briton unit mix. Already a few Belgae units. (Purple would be the best colour to use IMO)

Celtiberians/Numantia - Competition for Lusitannan. Also a major tribe.

Helvetii - An Alp faction, quite a major tribe, already alot of alpine units

Bosphorean Greeks - Interesting position and culture.

Pergamon - well duh.

The Last faction could possibly be : Mauretanian Numidians, Another German Tribe (Don't know the major ones), Massila, Bastarnae.

Quite alot of Celts, I know.

[Antigonos the Great]

This gives me an idea!

I have a suggestion as to how to get 52 playable factions. Why not have two campaigns which are identical, except with Campaign A only the first 26 factions are playable, and with Campaign B the last 26 are playable. Sort of like what RTR 7.0 wants to do, except with two campaigns instead of 20.

With Kingdoms promising multiple campaigns, you could just have:


EB Main Campaign (A to L)
EB Main Campaign (M to Z)

in your main menu and, hey presto, 52 playable factions.

The only thing is, I'm not sure you'd be able to squeeze in a realistic amount of units for 52 factions with the same space you had for 21 or whatever factions, but anyway, here's my suggestion if you need it.

I think it's cool

BTW Bosphoran kingdom's culture must be western greek, not nomad or barbarian
and new faction for britain sounds good, also 1~2 more german factions is needed

[lobf]

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?

Do you actually have a reason for postulating this besides your gut?




Erain with Goidilic reforms - All those splendid units and not a faction there? Bizarre is it not. Also provides competition with the Casse on the british isles which is quite decrepit as it stands.



You probably won't see most of those neat Goidilic units in EBII.

[Dumbass]

Do you actually have a reason for postulating this besides your gut?



You probably won't see most of those neat Goidilic units in EBII.

Wha! Why not? Aren't they historically accurate?

[Cartaphilus]

Do you actually have a reason for postulating this besides your gut?


More than you, indeed.

[Ludens]

Celtiberians/Numantia - Competition for Lusitannan. Also a major tribe.

Helvetii - An Alp faction, quite a major tribe, already alot of alpine units

It's a good list. However, IIRC the Helvetii where part of the Boii confederacy. The Celtiberians won't be included as a group, as they weren't a single tribe. However, we will probably see them in the form of the Arevacii (the Numantines).


Wha! Why not? Aren't they historically accurate?

That's currently being argued by lobf and Elmactios, but I am not sure what the team's stance is. Recruitment for the two heaviest Goidelic units (the hammermen and the imitation dosidataskeli) has been disabled, but this does not necessarily mean they will all be scrapped in EB2.

[Dumbass]

It's a good list. However, IIRC the Helvetii where part of the Boii confederacy. The Celtiberians won't be included as a group, as they weren't a single tribe. However, we will probably see them in the form of the Arevacii (the Numantines).


Helvettii were part of the Boii? That's interesting. It seems that we will definetly see the Boii in the game then. They're going to have a really interesting unit selection: Alpine, gallic, eastern celtic, maybe even some thracian.

[SaFe]

Belgae - Interesting Gallic-briton unit mix. Already a few Belgae units. (Purple would be the best colour to use IMO)






The Belgae would rather have a mixed celtic-germanic unit list.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

The Helvetii were part of the Boii confederation? I didn't know that.
-You learn something new every day!:beam:

Stupid question, perhaps: The Cisalpine Boii were evidently part of the same people as the Boii of Bohemia, however, would they have been a single entity, or were they completely separate as states?
If I'm not mistaken, the Cisalpine Boii migrated into northern Italy some 200 years before the beginning of EB, while the Bohemian Boii came to settle in... Bohemia, obviously.
But would they have maintained such a close relationship to the other Boii? I guess if the Helvetii were part of the coalision, they would have been able to keep "in touch" with the Cisalpine Boii as well.

[lobf]

More than you, indeed.

What are you talking about? I didn't even propose anything. I was just asking if you based this knowledge off of anything besides what feels right. Apparently not.


Wha! Why not? Aren't they historically accurate?

Likely not. But that's a whole other topic.



That's currently being argued by lobf and Elmactios, but I am not sure what the team's stance is. Recruitment for the two heaviest Goidelic units (the hammermen and the imitation dosidataskeli) has been disabled, but this does not necessarily mean they will all be scrapped in EB2.

It's not, and shouldn't be, just us. We are quite vocal about the matter, though. Anyways, the fact that they scrapped them between 1.0 and 1.1 (or maybe it was earlier) is a pretty good indicator they won't be back.

[Majd il-Romani]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Samurai Japan... Well, we could always get rid of the Roman Republic and replace Roma with Kyoto...:clown:


...?

This tops amongst the most non-sense posts I've seen, along with Abkosee's Bartix and that Hebrew defender guy's arguments.


You guys act as if I'm kidding. Honestly, samurai Japan in EB2 is perfectly feasible. :yes:

[General Appo]

Uhhhh............. no it isn´t. Please remember the the 3L´s. The PL, the CL and the UL, or (as the layman says it) the province limit, the culture limit and the unit limit. T

he province limit limits the number of provinces (duh), which means that if you wanted an accurate representation of ancient Japan and the lands between ancient Japan and the current EB map edge, you´d probably have to reduce all of Europe into a single province. This be the same reason India won´t be in, representing the worlds most heavily populated area with as many provinces as say Gaul (or Grecce for that matter) just isn´t historically accurate, and historical accuracy is what the EB team strives for in all matters.

The culture limit limits the number of cultures (duh), meaning that the Japs would have to share culture with say the Celts, Greeks or Carthaginians, and now that wouldn´t be very accurate would it? This is one of the many reasons Meroe and Axum won´t be in, as they´d require a completely new culture slot.

Finally, the unit limit limits the number of units (duh), meaning that the Japs wouldn´t have more than say... 10 units, which is just grossly wrong. If you then take into consideration the huge amounts of new units that would be required just to accurately represent a small 10km wide strip of land stretching between the Saka-Rauka and Japan, we´d probably have to sacrifice not only the Roman reforms, but the Roman units all togheter.

So no, while I am no EB Team member, I can say without any doubt, that EB 2 will not in any way include Japan. Period.
If you´re really desperate for Japan buy Total War: Shogun, old but good game.

Edit: By the way, didn´t the Samurai come into existence like waaaaaaaaaaay after 500 AD?

[Foot]

The guy's yanking your chain. Badly I might add, but yanking don't work so well over the internet cos its all about tone of voice. Anyway, stop talking bull and get back on message: "so what "bartix" and what faction replaces armenia go then?!!"

Foot

[General Appo]

Well, I´ve meet too many guys in my days whom I mistook for yanking my chain that I don´t take anything as yanking anymore. Maybe if he´d had 40 more posts or so.

Plus, nothing beats making absolutely non-useful posts where one simply restates what one´ve been told a million times.

[Jolt]

You guys act as if I'm kidding. Honestly, samurai Japan in EB2 is perfectly feasible. :yes:

Watch out, for he may be a Ferrous Cranus (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm).

[cmacq]

Watch out, for he may be a Ferrous Cranus (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm).

Out freeking standing link!

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't know how many people feel this way, but I don't believe that EB II needs to have different European factions. I would be absolutely fine if it had no new factions. Now having some extra factions would be nice, as long as it does not come at the cost of the quality of the other factions. It would be OK to have a Helleno-Barbarian faction such as Massilia or just anther barbarian faction. However, I said such as, meaning that I don't actually want Massilia to be a faction in EB II. I am generally against the idea of one-city factions such as Massalia, Pergamon, Syracuse. I simply don't think EB team could think of enough unique units for such insignificant states.

On the other hand, I know this sounds crazy, but I am practically dying for a Far Eastern faction. I would absolutely love to see the Mauryan Empire (which is actually pretty realistic since a part of India is already represented in the EB map) or the Zhou China in EB II. It would bring the much needed freshness to EB II, which I believe lacks it. These two empires don't even have to have all of their territories represented, just as long as they are there. I know this would be stretching the map limits, but don't you think EB will be a bit stagnant if you pretty much repeat EB I. I mean, how many of you would be thrilled to see a remake of RTW come out?!? Could EB II pleeeeeaaasssseee have Far Eastern factions?

Another new faction I wouldn't mind having in EB II is an African faction such as Kush or even something Central African. That would also refresh EB, since EB I had nothing like the African civilizations (Carthage was Semitic and its military borrowed heavily from other nations while Aiguptos/Ta-Kem was no longer in the hands of the natives but simply another Successor state). Having Far Eastern or African factions would be so much better than having another generic Hellenic faction lacking any uniqueness or a minor barbarian tribe.

About the Sweboz being a single, consolidated nation. If it is truly so, as Hax and Telos Athenaois have said, that the Sweboz were united, than why have the Germanic tribes have never seemed to be able to unite against Romans? Why does Tiberius Caesar Augustus, the second emperor of the Roman Empire say that we [Romans] should let the Germans continue to follow their love of anarchy and civil strife, when asked if he will invade the Germanic lands again? - (I have found this quote in a Russian-language history book and translated it to my best). The Sweboz were just one of the many Germanic tribes and confederations. Same goes for the Casse and Lusotannan, although I do agree that Arverni as well as Aedui were pretty consolidated (since the EB team chose to represent the "Gauls" accurately, as two different factions vying for supremacy). Even when Arminius united most of the Germanic tribes, Segestes and his faction was pro-Roman and even warned Varus about the treachery. The barbarian tribes were never fully united, always having at least two factions, such as the Aedui and Arverni.

[Visitor13]

the Mauryan Empire the Zhou China

Kush or even something Central African.



Did you try to read the thread? At all?

The Mauryan empire will be present in its FULL glory (as it ought to be) in Asia ton Barbaron.

I would like to see something unique in EBII as well, but your ideas won't make it in.

[General Appo]

I am generally against the idea of one-city factions such as Massalia, Pergamon, Syracuse. I simply don't think EB team could think of enough unique units for such insignificant states.

Insignificant? Have you read anything at all about say Pergamon´s history? Until you do, I will not discuss this matter with you.



On the other hand, I know this sounds crazy, but I am practically dying for a Far Eastern faction. I would absolutely love to see the Mauryan Empire (which is actually pretty realistic since a part of India is already represented in the EB map) or the Zhou China in EB II. It would bring the much needed freshness to EB II, which I believe lacks it. These two empires don't even have to have all of their territories represented, just as long as they are there. I know this would be stretching the map limits, but don't you think EB will be a bit stagnant if you pretty much repeat EB I. I mean, how many of you would be thrilled to see a remake of RTW come out?!? Could EB II pleeeeeaaasssseee have Far Eastern factions?

Another new faction I wouldn't mind having in EB II is an African faction such as Kush or even something Central African. That would also refresh EB, since EB I had nothing like the African civilizations (Carthage was Semitic and its military borrowed heavily from other nations while Aiguptos/Ta-Kem was no longer in the hands of the natives but simply another Successor state). Having Far Eastern or African factions would be so much better than having another generic Hellenic faction lacking any uniqueness or a minor barbarian tribe.



Read anything, I mean anything on the EBII forum and you´ll se this will not ever, ever, eva in your freaking life happen



About the Sweboz being a single, consolidated nation. If it is truly so, as Hax and Telos Athenaois have said, that the Sweboz were united, than why have the Germanic tribes have never seemed to be able to unite against Romans? Why does Tiberius Caesar Augustus, the second emperor of the Roman Empire say that we [Romans] should let the Germans continue to follow their love of anarchy and civil strife, when asked if he will invade the Germanic lands again? - (I have found this quote in a Russian-language history book and translated it to my best). The Sweboz were just one of the many Germanic tribes and confederations. Same goes for the Casse and Lusotannan, although I do agree that Arverni as well as Aedui were pretty consolidated (since the EB team chose to represent the "Gauls" accurately, as two different factions vying for supremacy). Even when Arminius united most of the Germanic tribes, Segestes and his faction was pro-Roman and even warned Varus about the treachery. The barbarian tribes were never fully united, always having at least two factions, such as the Aedui and Arverni.

You completely miss the point of pretty much everything.
First all, I don´t see the Germans represented as a united nation, except in Vanilla. The Sweboz control only a small portion of Germania or any land inhabitated by Germanic people. To gain control of this area and unify Germania into a single nation requires huge amounts of fighting against other germans, and the fact that the Sweboz never succeded in gaining control of this area is a reather null point, as then you could just as well say that since the Seleukids didn´t survive 60 AD there´s no point having them in the game after that.

Second, woudl you rather have all the "barbarian" peoples represtend as simply rebels? The Eleutheroi of EB may be designed to be Independents rather than rebels, but they still suffer from the Vanilla rebel syndrom of uttter lack of the will to act in any way what so ever, something the Germans quite often tended to do.

Thirdly, I wouldn´t exactly trust an Roman emperor who´s only experience of Germans were on the frontline to give a clearminded view of their state of affairs. I bet the Germans said loads of bad shit about the Romans too.

[The General]

On the other hand, I know this sounds crazy, but I am practically dying for a Far Eastern faction...

Another new faction I wouldn't mind having in EB II is an African faction such as Kush or even something Central African...

:wall:





Also, Pergamon's already in, so apparently the EB team doesn't consider them to be 'insignificant'. Also also, the Sweboz are a Germanic tribe (the Suebi), not a 'a single, consolidated nation' representing the Germans or whatever.

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the Sweboz being a single, consolidated nation. If it is truly so, as Hax and Telos Athenaois have said, that the Sweboz were united, than why have the Germanic tribes have never seemed to be able to unite against Romans?

United? What are you saying? Why do you have this crazy idea someone said it? Who said that? When did he/she say it?

I for sure never said the Sweboz were some sort of united thing - heck they were a confederation of tribes many of whom did by and large as they pleased, only united in the face of common interests; unless by the mere glimpse of fortune you managed to misinterpret my (and Hax's for that matter) post so grossly that I seriously doubt you were paying any form of attention at all...

[Parkev]

I am generally against the idea of one-city factions such as Massalia, Pergamon, Syracuse. I simply don't think EB team could think of enough unique units for such insignificant states.


A conceivable assertion but by the extension of this logic, if the start date was circa 340 BC, Rome wouldn't be included as a faction, as it only had control over the area surrounding the city, and I'm sure everyone would have something to say about that. :laugh4:

Edit: Don't quote me on the date.:hide:

[Aemilius Paulus]

A conceivable assertion but by the extension of this logic, if the start date was circa ..... BC, Rome wouldn't be included as a faction, as it only had control over the area surrounding the city, and I'm sure everyone would have something to say about that. :laugh4:

Edit: Don't quote me on the date.:hide:

Rome became an empire, while Pergamon and Syracuse remained a city-state. In 272 BC Rome was no longer just another city-state. By insignificant I meant that there were larger nations than the two city-states I have already mentioned that were not represented in EB I. How unique can you make Pergamon or Syracuse anyway?

[Majd il-Romani]

Uhhhh............. no it isn´t. Please remember the the 3L´s. The PL, the CL and the UL, or (as the layman says it) the province limit, the culture limit and the unit limit. T

he province limit limits the number of provinces (duh), which means that if you wanted an accurate representation of ancient Japan and the lands between ancient Japan and the current EB map edge, you´d probably have to reduce all of Europe into a single province. This be the same reason India won´t be in, representing the worlds most heavily populated area with as many provinces as say Gaul (or Grecce for that matter) just isn´t historically accurate, and historical accuracy is what the EB team strives for in all matters.

The culture limit limits the number of cultures (duh), meaning that the Japs would have to share culture with say the Celts, Greeks or Carthaginians, and now that wouldn´t be very accurate would it? This is one of the many reasons Meroe and Axum won´t be in, as they´d require a completely new culture slot.

Finally, the unit limit limits the number of units (duh), meaning that the Japs wouldn´t have more than say... 10 units, which is just grossly wrong. If you then take into consideration the huge amounts of new units that would be required just to accurately represent a small 10km wide strip of land stretching between the Saka-Rauka and Japan, we´d probably have to sacrifice not only the Roman reforms, but the Roman units all togheter.

So no, while I am no EB Team member, I can say without any doubt, that EB 2 will not in any way include Japan. Period.
If you´re really desperate for Japan buy Total War: Shogun, old but good game.

Edit: By the way, didn´t the Samurai come into existence like waaaaaaaaaaay after 500 AD?

Woooooow dude I was joking, calm down.

but on a more serious note here is what I think will be in EB2 (not what I want, but what I think will be in)

Already in:
Pergamon (no way!)

almost certainly going to be in:
at least 1 numidian faction, if not both
The Boii
The Basternae/some other Germanic tribe
Celtiberian tribe

might make it in:
Nabatia
Scythia
some other city-state (cyrene, syracuse)
Belgae

wishful thinking but still possible:
replacing the KH into achean and aetolian leagues
Another British/Godilic tribe
A mauryan Satrapy
Cappadocia

yeah, right:
Nubia
Ethiopia
any far eastern faction

[Aemilius Paulus]

I know the Far East, especially the Zhou, are a pretty far-fetched idea for EB II, but why couldn't the Mauryan Empire make it into EB II? Most of it is already represented in the EB map, just as Eleutheroi. Yes, I did read about Asia ton Barbaron, but it is still very hard to figure out if the mod is going to be successful or not. So many RTW mods were made or initiated and yet so few came out alive in the end.

About the Pergamon being insignificant. Why is it that so many EB fans have difficulty judging the relative importance of nations, without instantly becoming emotional as soon as their favorite faction is somehow offended. The Romani were more important than the Casse, the Seleukids were more important than the early Rome. I know that the mission of EB is not representing the most important factions but to try to represent everyone about equally. True, importance is often a matter of an opinion. However, what made Pergamon so different from the thousands of other Greek city-state colonies that it made it to EB II while others did not. Are there not enough Hellenic factions in EB already? Why not at least having something more unique, such as Massalia or Chersonesos? How was Pergamon more important than Syracuse? In my opinion, they were about equal, although Pergamon is represented in EB II and Syracuse, well I am not sure about that. What kind of unique units will Pergamon have? Pergamon Hoplites, that have the same skin (with the exception of different coloured and patterned shield)as Greek Classical Hoplites, with the exception of a different name and 1 more attack or 2 more defence skill than the regular Classical Hoplite; Akontistai with a different hat and a different skin tan:laugh4:?

Yes I have read Pergamon's history, General Appo. But why not have Kyrene, Halikarnassos, Zankynthos, Emporiai, Massalia, Olbia, Agathe, Alalia, Kroton, Kydonia, Byzantion, Heraklea, Odessos, Phasis, Pantikapaion, Pitoys, Kerasos, Mallos, Side, Antipolis, or Tanais? I am not criticizing the EB team for choosing Pergamon, I am simply arguing with the people who think Pergamon was so important and unique. The EB team cannot put everyone in EB II, so they have to pick and choose. I personally believe in balance and by balance, I mean not putting all of the factions in the one area, such as the Balkans and Asia Minor. There are already tons of factions there, you can barely find Eleutheroi there anymore, especially with Pergamon now being another addition.

Then you look at areas like Eastern Europe, with tens of territories occupied by so called "Rebels" between the Sweboz and Sauromatae. That area is practically crying out for a factions, as all of those Eleutheroi/"Rebels" were independent nations and kingdoms. A Slavic faction would be nice over there, one that would be a mix of "barbarian" and steppe nomad traditions. If not, as Majd il-Romani said, there could be a Boii or Bastarnae faction there. Belgae and a Godilic tribe would be nice, especially since there were already quite a bit of Godilic units in EB I and because Roma Surrectum already has the Belgae. Just as long as it's not another Hellenic faction. Why couldn't there can't we have the Kushites anyway?

EDIT: sorry for such a lengthy post, just had to get it out!

[satalexton]

i think thats' cuz that ball-less chap nicked a helluva silver and used it to become a major asia power...dun quote me on that tho...

[Majd il-Romani]

I know the Far East, especially the Zhou, are a pretty far-fetched idea for EB II, but why couldn't the Mauryan Empire make it into EB II? Most of it is already represented in the EB map, just as Eleutheroi. Yes, I did read about Asia ton Barbaron, but it is still very hard to figure out if the mod is going to be successful or not. So many RTW mods were made or initiated and yet so few came out alive in the end.

theyre not saying that Maurya can't be in, but it has to be a small satrapy, not the whole shebang


what made Pergamon so different from the thousands of other Greek city-state colonies that it made it to EB II while others did not. Are there not enough Hellenic factions in Eb already? Why not at least having something more unique, such as Massalia or Chersonesos? How was Pergamon more important than Syracuse? In my opinion, they were about equal, although Pergamon is represented in EB II and Syracuse, well I am not sure about that. What kind of unique units will Pergamon have? Pergamon Hoplites, that have the same skin (with the exception of different coloured and patterned shield)as Greek Classical Hoplites, with the exception of a different name and 1 more attack or 2 more defence skill than the regular Classical Hoplite; Akontistai with a different hat and a different skin tan:laugh4:?

I couldn't agree with you more :yes:



Why couldn't there can't we have the Kushites anyway?

we cant have Kush because there is a culture limit, which means that if they were in the game, all of their Generals and agents would be either white or semetic, not black, and so would their buildings (imagine ROman-style buildings for Kush) so unless they can bypass those hardcoded limits then Kush will just be aa rebel province

[Aemilius Paulus]

i think thats' cuz that ball-less chap nicked a helluva silver and used it to become a major asia power...dun quote me on that tho...

Sorry, but what exactly are you talking about? I'm having a hard time interpreting what you have just said.

[Aemilius Paulus]

we cant have Kush because there is a culture limit, which means that if they were in the game, all of their Generals and agents would be either white or semetic, not black, and so would their buildings (imagine ROman-style buildings for Kush) so unless they can bypass those hardcoded limits then Kush will just be aa rebel province

I was just typing my previous post when you posted the new reply on this thread~:)

Yeah, I was thinking of the culture limit too, but if the if the Kushites were of wrong culture, it wouldn't be as bad as having M2TW buildings in the EB II Battle Map cities as Foot said is possible in this thread:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106479. Are the cultures so hard-coded that the EB team cannot create a new culture? Isn't it possible to ask CA how to do that (please excuse me for my modding ignorance - I haven't modded that deep before)?

[Admetos]

why couldn't the Mauryan Empire make it into EB II? Most of it is already represented in the EB map, just as Eleutheroi.

Huh? Most of the Mauryan Empire is already represented in EB? Ok...


Yes I have read Pergamon's history, General Appo. But why not have Kyrene, Halikarnassos, Zankynthos, Emporiai, Massalia, Olbia, Agathe, Alalia, Kroton, Kydonia, Byzantion, Heraklea, Odessos, Phasis, Pantikapaion, Pitoys, Kerasos, Mallos, Side, Antipolis, or Tanais? I am not criticizing the EB team for choosing Pergamon, I am simply arguing with the people who think Pergamon was so important and unique.

Again, I think your history is lacking. If you had read up about Pergamon, you would know that they had controlled a large portion of Asia Minor.


Are the cultures so hard-coded that the EB team cannot create a new culture?

There is a limit on the amount of cultures, so to create another one, another has to be lost.

[Majd il-Romani]

Are the cultures so hard-coded that the EB team cannot create a new culture? Isn't it possible to ask CA how to do that (please excuse me for my modding ignorance - I haven't modded that deep before)?

There is a hardcoded culture limit (so in RTW the cultures would be steppe, barbarian, Eastern, Egyptian, and Carthaginian) and in order to create a new culture you need to create a new .exe (iirc, don't quote me on that) which would be illegal

[Aemilius Paulus]

Huh? Most of the Mauryan Empire is already represented in EB? Ok...

Again, I think your history is lacking. If you had read up about Pergamon, you would know that they had controlled a large portion of Asia Minor.



There is a limit on the amount of cultures, so to create another one, another has to be lost.

Q1:It is, or at least the western half of the Maruryan. Having a part of the Mauryan Empire is better than none at all. What did I say that was wrong?

Q2: This is from the EB II FAQ by MarcusAureliusAntonius:
"Q: Will the Koinon Hellenon be devided into a Spartan, Athenian, and Rhodian Faction?
A: The Koinon Hellenon will remain as a faction and will not be divided up. Individually, each city-state was not strong enough or expansionistic enough to warrant the usage of a faction slot during this time period. Based on the EB system of deciding factions, if the Koinon were divided, it would be best represented by strong rebels. Therefore, the Koinon Hellenon will remain as a united league."
I would say the exact same thing about Pergamon.

Q3: You're right about that. However, doesn't eve the CA know how to change/crack that hardcoding, if such thing is possible?

P.S. How's Asia Ton Barbaron coming along? I'm really looking forward to it.

[Foot]

Mauryan Empire (the green one in India):
https://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4021/0182iq3.jpg

Having about 2/3rds (and the important 2/3rds like with all the major cities and stuff) off the map instantly makes such a faction impossible to do. Without including India on the map the Mauryans are just not a major player.

As for Pergamon. They had an important part to play in Asia Minor, were a powerful city-state with some expansion within our timeframe. Compared to Athens, Sparta and Rhodes, who did bugger all outside of their Koinons, Pergamon is a far more viable candidate.

Of course CA knows how change the max number of hardcodes, they coded it. Its not the matrix, there isn't any magic to it, seven isn't some mystery number that just popped up, they plugged that in because thats all they needed. We did ask them to increase the culture limit, but CA, for whatever reason, did not do so in there latest patches. My guess is that either the time taken to re-code that area would have taken too long to do with very little return (they aren't going to make many more sells from such a specific change that doesn't alter anything their end), or that recoding it introduced new bugs or hogged up the system's resources too much.

Of course, with faction limits we have to make choices. At this point most of the major players are already in. One of the main considerations we have is that we have people on the team willing to work on the area and that there is actually information on a specific political entity that we can use to create a faction. Why is so much of eastern europe empty? Because so much of eastern europe is devoid of evidence of what the hell went on there during our timeframe.

I hope this has helped some people understand what is going on.

Foot

[Aemilius Paulus]

I hope this has helped some people understand what is going on.
Foot

Thanks Foot, it sure did.:yes:

[Admetos]

Thanks for the support Aemilius, it's coming along nicely.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Thanks for the support Aemilius, it's coming along nicely.

Well, if the picture Foot just posted is from AtB, I'd say: Whoopie! Keep up the good work and make us more EB goodness to play! :cheerleader:

[Hax]

Yep, that's our AtB map!

[ludwag]

Factions hope they include in eb 2

Thracian tribes like Ordysai and Tribali becouse getai is too much dacian, so we need some real thracians.
Iberian tribes. Maybe one or two new ones to fight agains Lusotannan.
Pergamon in asia minor, but they should be very weak in the beginning.
One more tribe in germania.

[Foot]

If you read some of the stickies you would find that Pergamon have already been confirmed.

Foot

[Majd il-Romani]

hey Foot are you guys still taking ideas or do you have a list of factions ready?

[General Appo]

Well, they´ve decided on 9 out of 10 factions, right? And the last one may (may) be kept for scripting purposes.

[Foot]

We've chosen nine. But a lot of the people have just been guessing in this thread, but where people post extensive reasons for a faction ("I really like faction x" or "there is space in region y" are not reasons we'll listen to) we will take that on board. But at the moment we are holding at nine and are happy with our choices so only a major shakeup will find them changing.

Foot

[Majd il-Romani]

We've chosen nine. But a lot of the people have just been guessing in this thread, but where people post extensive reasons for a faction ("I really like faction x" or "there is space in region y" are not reasons we'll listen to) we will take that on board. But at the moment we are holding at nine and are happy with our choices so only a major shakeup will find them changing.

Foot

9? really? very nice:2thumbsup: Any idea what those are, or will it just be a waste of breath asking when you reply with something obvious like "they exist at 272 BC and be in the EB2 map"

[Foot]

Well I know. But we're not telling you now. They will be released much in the same way as Pergamon was, as a preview of the faction. Was that not obvious. Its how things are done around here. Generally, as modders, the only thing that allows us to sleep at night is playing on the nerves of the fans.

I can tell you that at least one of the unrevealed factions controls at least one of the current provinces on the EB map at the beginning of 272BC. Also the next faction we will reveal has a name beginning with a letter of the alphabet.

Foot

[ludwag]

is it too big question? Are one of them Thacian? I really hope.

[Foot]

We will preview our chosen factions when we are ready to do so and not before.

Foot

[General Appo]

I can tell you that at least one of the unrevealed factions controls at least on the of the current provinces on the EB map at the beginning of 272BC. Also the next faction we will reveal has a name beginning with a letter of the alphabet.



~:eek: *faints*
No way!

[Jolt]

I can tell you that at least one of the unrevealed factions controls at least one of the current provinces on the EB map at the beginning of 272BC. Also the next faction we will reveal has a name beginning with a letter of the alphabet.

Foot

The successor of Moses is known. His name is Prophet Foot.

[Connacht]

However, I hope you will show us in the next stele a faction that isn't obvious.
For instance, just in case, if you have decided to add Numidia, it wouldn't be a surprise to reveal them, after so many months I'd prefer to see, dunno, Illyrians or Arveaci or Boii or Bartix (random examples). ;)

[Foot]

We won't be showing a faction in the next stele period.

Foot

[eddy_purpus]

Well I know. But we're not telling you now. They will be released much in the same way as Pergamon was, as a preview of the faction. Was that not obvious. Its how things are done around here. Generally, as modders, the only thing that allows us to sleep at night is playing on the nerves of the fans.

I can tell you that at least one of the unrevealed factions controls at least one of the current provinces on the EB map at the beginning of 272BC. Also the next faction we will reveal has a name beginning with a letter of the alphabet.
Foot
i dont want to be a revealing person but i think that you just said Syracuse will be the next preview hahaha xD

[Hax]

..no, he didn't.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

We won't be showing a faction in the next stele period.

Foot

Interesting...
A new game-mechanic, perhaps?


And for the Thracians, there were, if I'm not mistaken, some kingdom centered around Tylis from ca. 280 b.C, but it was more of a celtic-thracian kingdom, and it was not a major player, although they persisted well into roman imperial times, so they are not very likely... Still possible, though.

[eddy_purpus]

..no, he didn't.
Muahahahah yes he did xD

[Foot]

Man, eddy, you are going to be so disappointed.

Foot

[Hax]

Muahahahah yes he did xD

No, he didn't. He only stated that one of the unrevealed factions will control at least one region that existed in 272. How the hell did you get to Syracuse from that?

[Jolt]

If he had said "will control one region" or "will control a maximum of one region" it would still give you hope enough that it might be Syracuse. Unfortunatly for you, Foot has already made a revelation that there will not be a new faction preview in the next stele. That means no Syracuse (Or Bartix. :<).

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think, by such criteria of "revelation" we could get away with previewing Pergamon a second time. Heck, Foot didn't even say it will be an as of yet unpreviewed faction. Actually, it might just be Pergamon the Preview II...:grin:

[General Appo]

Or why not a preview of the Casse? Where you only tell us what hasn´t changed. And you don´t say how much more hasn´t changed.
True Foot style.

[TheGlobalizer]

I can tell you that at least one of the unrevealed factions controls at least one of the current provinces on the EB map at the beginning of 272BC. Also the next faction we will reveal has a name beginning with a letter of the alphabet.

I get a kick out of these posts, no matter how often I read them.

[eddy_purpus]

If he had said "will control one region" or "will control a maximum of one region" it would still give you hope enough that it might be Syracuse. Unfortunatly for you, Foot has already made a revelation that there will not be a new faction preview in the next stele. That means no Syracuse (Or Bartix. :<).

when did he say that ???????????????

[lobf]

the search function works great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2015139&postcount=864)

[Strategos Alexandros]

So does reading the last page :laugh4:

[Jolt]

when did he say that ???????????????

For simplification efforts, I'll even underline and bold his sentence:


We won't be showing a faction in the next stele period.

Foot

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is my second favorite thread ever, only behind Bartix.

[Eastern Foot-Rocker]

Which new factions would you like to see in E.B?

The Maccabees founded the Hasmonean royal dynasty and established Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for ,about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE.

Of course, this happenend a little bit later than 278 BCE, but does it really matter?

I think a playable jewish faction would be an interesting faction, between the selukid and the ptolemaic Empires.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Maccabees founded the Hasmonean royal dynasty and established Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for ,about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE.

Of course, this happenend a little bit later than 278 BCE, but does it really matter?

I think a playable jewish faction would be an interesting faction, between the selukid and the ptolemaic Empires.

In one of the previews or "steles" they said there would be no jewish faction. Look in the Important Information sticky for more info on that.

[Hax]

Of course, this happenend a little bit later than 278 BCE, but does it really matter?

I think; yes.

[General Appo]

How the hell would a faction that doesn´t appear for over 100 years be represented? It makes no sense.

[Martelus Flavius]

Hax is right, the goal is to represent as accurately as possible the world in 272 BC (Or 481 AUC, or whatever other calendar you want to use), so if a faction didn't exist at this time, the chance of its occurance in EB2 is as low as the bottom of the Marianna's trench. After 272 it's up to the player to write history.

Regards

Martel

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hax is right, the goal is to represent as accurately as possible the world in 272 BC (Or 481 AUC, or whatever other calendar you want to use), so if a faction didn't exist at this time, the chance of its occurance in EB2 is as low as the bottom of the Marianna's trench. After 272 it's up to the player to write history.

Regards

Martel

That's true, but is EB II going to have emergent factions? Sorry, I remember seeing the answer to this question somewhere else, but I have forgotten by now.

How could EB II team create a Jewish faction? Aren't they too little and insignificant to be represented as a whole faction? I mean there were thousands of city-states like it. Not only this, but what kind of unit roster would it have? The same units as other factions, only with the word "Jewish" preceding the name of the unit and a slightly different color scheme/shield design? It's much like the Pergamon dilemma.

[Ludens]

EB2 will not contain emergent factions, Jewish or not (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290). The Jewish revolt could be very well simulated with normal unrest. It was not as if the Hasmodean state had imperial ambitions.

Unit roster is not very relevant when discussing faction inclusion. The main point is whether they were important and expansionist (i.e. cannot be simulated by rebels). And the Maccabean revolt, important as it later became from a religious perspective, was from a contemporary point of view just one of many Seleucid provinces breaking away. A potential Pontus they were not.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Unit roster is not very relevant when discussing faction inclusion. The main point is whether they were important and expansionist (i.e. cannot be simulated by rebels). And the Maccabean revolt, important as it later became from a religious perspective, was from a contemporary point of view just one of many Seleucid provinces breaking away. A potential Pontus they were not.

Exactly my point about the Jewish state.

But still, about other factions, how would you create a faction if you do not have enough units for a unit roster, or lack information about that faction? For instance, EB I and II could, in my opinion, use an Eastern European faction because there is a power vacuum there. All of the other parts of the map have lots of factions, but Eastern Europe is desolate and empty. There is more space and territories between Sauromatae and Sweboz than between any other two neighboring (in the sense that there are no other factions between them) factions. However, neither the EB team or other historians know any significant amount of information about the people and types of soldiers there. That's probably why there was no Eastern European faction.

[Ludens]

Exactly my point about the Jewish state.

I thought you were asking after that. My I apologies if I misunderstood you.


But still, about other factions, how would you create a faction if you do not have enough units for a unit roster, or lack information about that faction? For instance, EB I and II could, in my opinion, use an Eastern European faction because there is a power vacuum there. All of the other parts of the map have lots of factions, but Eastern Europe is desolate and empty. There is more space and territories between Sauromatae and Sweboz than between any other two neighboring (in the sense that there are no other factions between them) factions. However, neither the EB team or other historians know any significant amount of information about the people and types of soldiers there. That's probably why there was no Eastern European faction.

If there is that little information about the faction, they most likely weren't very sophisticated. Every material culture will leave artefacts, weapons, etc. for archaeologists to find. If all they can find are simple weapons and no armour, then their military would probably have been simple indeed. This is not always true though (take the Zulu's for one), but then again if they had an effective and unified military, we would have probably heard about them from contemporary historians.

As for Eastern Europe, there is indeed a dearth of sources, but there is a pretty good chance the Lugii of southern Poland are going to be included in EB2. They were in the running for EB1, but lost out to the Saba. An alternative would be the Bastarnae, but the team has made contradictory about the possibility of inclusion.

[Aemilius Paulus]

As for Eastern Europe, there is indeed a dearth of sources, but there is a pretty good chance the Lugii of southern Poland are going to be included in EB2. They were in the running for EB1, but lost out to the Saba. An alternative would be the Bastarnae, but the team has made contradictory about the possibility of inclusion.

Splendid!

[lobf]

EB2 will not contain emergent factions, Jewish or not (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290). The Jewish revolt could be very well simulated with normal unrest. It was not as if the Hasmodean state had imperial ambitions.


Exactly. I know the team has stated this same thing about a Jewish faction in the past. They had no ambitions beyond their homeland. It would be kind of silly to be able to play a Jewish Empire in my opinion.

[-Praetor-]

The Maccabees founded the Hasmonean royal dynasty and established Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for ,about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE.

Of course, this happenend a little bit later than 278 BCE, but does it really matter?



Yes, it does matter for the team, since that was precisely the reason for taking the Yuezhi out of EB1. Having a faction emerge half way into the game is like using half the potential of a faction slot, and that`s not gonna happen.

Cheers!

[Majd il-Romani]

The Jews, eleutherioi or not, should fight like this
https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb12/jluce7_2007/JewJitsu.jpg

just kidding, But I have a good idea. There are 10 more faction openings availible, right? Are there 10 more factions PERIOD or aare there 10 more factions that start out with a settlement and more that appear midgame or by rebellion. Because, if there are, you could have a Macabee faction from a rebellion in Judaia, or the Yuezhi migrating to the EB map. Sure, they wouldn't be playable (on custom battle they would) but it'd be better to have them in, right?

[Foot]

Fecking hell! We are not doing a jewish faction. A minor kingdom that didn't even appear until way into our timeperiod. Please. Their importance historically and religiously masks their unimportance politically during our timeframe.

We have stated over and over again that all factions will be playable, thus making emerging factions off the table. Please, please, please do not force us to repeat ourselves over and over again. Read a little of the steles, they do actually hold information.

Foot

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fecking hell! We are not doing a jewish faction. A minor kingdom that didn't even appear until way into our timeperiod. Please. Their importance historically and religiously masks their unimportance politically during our timeframe.

We have stated over and over again that all factions will be playable, thus making emerging factions off the table. Please, please, please do not force us to repeat ourselves over and over again. Read a little of the steles, they do actually hold information.

Foot

Glad I am not a moderator... after a month I would probably ban anyone who didn't read everything in the preview threads before posting here.

[General Appo]

Fecking hell! We are not doing a jewish faction. A minor kingdom that didn't even appear until way into our timeperiod. Please. Their importance historically and religiously masks their unimportance politically during our timeframe.

We have stated over and over again that all factions will be playable, thus making emerging factions off the table. Please, please, please do not force us to repeat ourselves over and over again. Read a little of the steles, they do actually hold information.

Foot


Seeing as I´ve said it so many times now it almost seems a little cliché to repeat it, I´m just gonna let you guys imagine me saying it, just this once.
But that guy, really was trampled by....

[Dumbass]

Seeing as I´ve said it so many times now it almost seems a little cliché to repeat it, I´m just gonna let you guys imagine me saying it, just this once.
But that guy, really was trampled by....

...by the... hand?

[General Appo]

No no, I distinctly remember it was something different from the hand. Emmm... gosh, what can it be? Ah, but I know who to ask!
Foot, we really need your help here.

[Megas Methuselah]

OWNED!!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkgBVNuFcQ&feature=related) (plz click link)

:crowngrin:

[General Appo]

No no, that´s definetely not it. Seriously Foot, you are the only one which can help! What trampled Majd il-Romani?

[Megas Methuselah]

I distinctly remember it being slightly hairy with an odd, distasteful smell.... :uhoh:

-runs away-

[abou]

Guys, remember the discussion we had on spamming?

[General Appo]

It is good and should be practiced and encouraged at every opportunity?

[Megas Methuselah]

Yeah, I'm done now. But it all started with Sarcasm, so don't look go lynching me just yet.

Now, seeing as Pergamum is a new faction, I think it would be appropriate were it to be included in this thread. Now please, someone tell me the details centered around the "city-state" factions. It sounds so exciting. Whenever it enters my thought, my blood warms and my bladder gets impatient. :beam:

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Now, seeing as Pergamum is a new faction, I think it would be appropriate were it to be included in this thread. Now please, someone tell me the details centered around the "city-state" factions. It sounds so exciting. Whenever it enters my thought, my blood warms and my bladder gets impatient. :beam:

This actually has some interesting implications for what new factions might be in there.

The factions will evidently be divided into four different categories, one of them being city-states.
If you think about it, there aren't many factions currently there, that bight be categorizred as such. The only ones I can come up with straight away are Pergamon and the KH (though this is actually more of a leauge of city states that a city-state in itself). Carthage and Rome could possibly be considered city-states, but that seems unlikely.

Unless the former two are the only factions in this category, which also seems unlikely, given that the other socio-political types then will have an average of roughly 9 factions each, this certainly narrows the alternatives down considerably. Some possible city-state factions have also been officialy rejected by the team, such as Kyrene and a division of the KH. This has made me draw the following conclusions:

Some possabilities might be:
1. Syracuse: Has been much debated in the past, and was active during the period. Unfortunately, not too much is known about their military, and their position would be quite difficult to hold, right between the growing empires of Carthage and Rome.
2. Massalia: Seems very unlikely, given that team members have said it probably won't be in. Does fit the criteria for a city-state quite nicely, though.
3. Gandhara: Was Taxila a city-state? I think I read that somewhere, but as I can't remember the source, I somewhat doubt its credability. Anyone care to enlighten me?:beam:
4. Tylis: The Thracian kingdom of the Odrysiai was centered around the city of Tylis. Was definately active during the period, however did never expand far from its original boundries.
5. Bosphoran kingdom (maybe): Centered around Pantikapaion, however uncertain wether they can actually be called a city-state. Is a quite possible candidate for a faction, though.

In the case the KH is a city-state faction, other alternatives are:
6. Aetolian leauge: Active during the period, did temporarily controll large parts of Greece. It was involved in both wars and alliances with Macedonia as well as Rome and the AS.
7. Aechaean Leauge: Also active, and important in greek internal politics of the period. Would require a new province in the Peloponesse, however, and seems overall less likely that the Aetolians.

Anyway, the prospect of different factions having different socio-political configurations has intrigued me quite a lot since their mention in the Gaza-announcement, and hopefully, we will know their true nature before long.

[Megas Methuselah]

Anyway, the prospect of different factions having different socio-political configurations has intrigued me quite a lot since their mention in the Gaza-announcement, and hopefully, we will know their true nature before long.

Wow... I'm alread pissing myself in anticipation! :crowngrin:

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Wow... I'm alread pissing myself in anticipation! :crowngrin:

We're all in the urinal, but some of us are looking at the stars...

[Kuningaz]

I´m sorry to destroy your theory, but as it says in the preview of the Gaza Campaign that you will be introduced to this culture, I would say they actually consider either Ptolemaioi or Arche Seleukeia as city state factions... (Cause I don´t think neither KH nor Pergamon have much to do with Gaza)

[General Appo]

How could they possible consider the Arche Seleukeia a city-state faction? `Cause you know, it wasn´t.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After wondering what the EB map would look like, with ten new factions on it I am starting to think I wont be able to have my fun "isolated from the rest of the world until the time is right" campaigns.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I´m sorry to destroy your theory, but as it says in the preview of the Gaza Campaign that you will be introduced to this culture, I would say they actually consider either Ptolemaioi or Arche Seleukeia as city state factions... (Cause I don´t think neither KH nor Pergamon have much to do with Gaza)

Well, I don't think that Ptolemaioi or AS will be city-state factions. Having the two largest empires in the western world posing as city-states makes absolutely no sense.

Also, I haven't gotten any confirmation from the team on this, but I would guess that the factions in the tutorial will not be factions from the real campaign. Especially when one considers that when the EB-campaign starts, Antigonos, apparantly the main adversary in the tutorial, has been dead for 30 years.

[Kuningaz]

Hm you got your point there. I guess we´ll see when EBII is out:yes:

[burn_again]

It's much too early to discuss who will be a city-state faction, as we don't know yet what the other 3 socio-politic types will be and how "city-state" will be defined.
I would normally think that city-state means something like Syracuse, a state based on a single polis. But it could also mean a state which is based on the foundation of cities and military colonies, which would count in the AS, the Ptolies and perhaps Rome. In the preview it says that "city-state factions spread their influence and culture into a province through the use of military or trade colonies", so I guess this points to the latter interpretation.

[General Appo]

Still, I dare bet my copy of EB... no, I never bet that...umm... well, something very dear to me, that the Arche Seleukeia will never be represented as an city-state in EB. That would just be so ridiculous.
If Athenai was its own faction, sure, city-state. And you know, they spread their power through use of military and trade colonies. But the AS as a city-state... and yeah, I know your second interpretation differs a lot from the classical city-state type, but why then call it city-state?

[burn_again]

But the AS as a city-state... and yeah, I know your second interpretation differs a lot from the classical city-state type, but why then call it city-state?

I don't know. Seriously, it's just an idea. It depends a lot on what the other socio-politic types might be. I'm quite excited about that stuff. I guess another type could be "tribal confederacy", but I have no idea what the other types might be. "City-state" could mean a lot, depending on how the other types are defined.

[Megas Methuselah]

I'd bet anything members of the EB team are simply laughing at our presumptions right now... :shame:

[Cbvani]

I know they want to avoid emergent factions, but bringing back the Yeuzhi would be cool. Make 'em emergent, it'd be fun.
And why not have one or two factions emerge later in the game? It would spice things up a bit.

Personally, I would love to see a Roman clone faction that emerges a few dozen years after the Marian reforms that would simulate a civil war that came with the huge power shift in Rome itself. I'm a Roman civil war fan! (call it a battle between populares and optimates, or the Boni as they are often called.....) But that idea might be too complicated. So yeah.

[abou]

Why not? I mean, it's been stated before, but I suppose it can't hurt to say it again. A lot of work goes into factions - a lot. We're not going to put so much work into a faction that can't be played, which is what emergent factions are: unplayable.

You guys need to get over it.

[Foot]

Personally, I would love to see a Roman clone faction that emerges a few dozen years after the Marian reforms that would simulate a civil war that came with the huge power shift in Rome itself. I'm a Roman civil war fan! (call it a battle between populares and optimates, or the Boni as they are often called.....) But that idea might be too complicated. So yeah.

I'm sorry, but the Roman Republic (which covers most of our timeperiod was really rather stable, compare that to the Seleucids or Ptolemaioi and you can imagine why the romans would be one of the last factions to be considered for a shadow faction.

Foot

[Cbvani]

I'm sorry, but the Roman Republic (which covers most of our timeperiod was really rather stable, compare that to the Seleucids or Ptolemaioi and you can imagine why the romans would be one of the last factions to be considered for a shadow faction.

Foot

Yes, I agree on a historical basis. But I can dream.

[BozosLiveHere]

Why not? I mean, it's been stated before, but I suppose it can't hurt to say it again. A lot of work goes into factions - a lot. We're not going to put so much work into a faction that can't be played, which is what emergent factions are: unplayable.

You guys need to get over it.

You are wrong. It is possible to have playable emerging factions. It won't happen, though.

[Aemilius Paulus]

You are wrong. It is possible to have playable emerging factions. It won't happen, though.

What about unplayable emerging factions?

[Foot]

dull

Foot

[bobbin]

Here's my thoughts on possible new factions
1.Numdia
2.Georgia (very probable in my opinion)
3.Boii (central european ones as a nice rival for the sweboz)
4.Belgae
5.Bosphorian Kingdom
6.Pergamon (duh.)
7.Kappadokia (or galatians but probably not both as anatolia is pretty crowded as it is)
8.Atropatene (wouldn't it be nice to see a three way war them the Hay and Georgia for control of the Caucasus)
9.Celtiberians (just to make expanding into iberia even more annoying)
10.Gandhara (just to make expanding into india even more annoying)

Another i thought would be worth a mention is the Massagetae.

Sorry if some of these have been shot down already i haven't had the time to read all 31 pages of this thread:)

[Ghaseken]

I'd LOVE Thrakia. I mean, they deserve a place in the game. Oh, and maybe Illirian pirates? Oh and can u have some sort of emergent faction, since there's mongols and timurids in m2tw. and what about maybe an extra campaign? the extra campaign could just start later with diff boundaries You know like some factions get swallowed up, the reforms are already there for some factions, and some expand, and some shrink.

[Foot]

Literally on this very page we explain that we are not going to have emergent factions, please read the thread before posting or read the FAQ so we don't have to repeat ourselves.

We are not having another campaign startdate, there won't be a late era in EB. This is because the extra work would mean that EBII would not be released until way into the second half of this century.

As for your other suggestions, Illyrian Pirates is not really a plausible faction.

Foot

[Ghaseken]

As for your other suggestions, Illyrian Pirates is not really a plausible faction.

Foot

Well what about the slavs? Like russians, armenians, georgians, lithuanians, belarus, ukraine, and others? might be able to pile them up, and i THINK they existed in that time. oh and if anyone asks, im russian.

[Tellos Athenaios]

AFAIK Slavs are a later ethnicity, similar to Franks, Goths etc. etc. in that their origins are more or less already defined but the ethnicity as we know it didn't come into play until roughly 500 years later?

[Foot]

Armenians and Georgians are not slavs at all. They are from the Caucasus mountains and Anatolia, from an ancient people who had lived there for centuries. The Baltic tribes at this time (which I imagine the slavic culture was descended from) leave very little in the archaelogical record which suggests that they were in any way unified to a level that would allow us to represent them as a political unit.

Foot

[Ghaseken]

Armenians and Georgians are not slavs at all. They are from the Caucasus mountains and Anatolia, from an ancient people who had lived there for centuries. The Baltic tribes at this time (which I imagine the slavic culture was descended from) leave very little in the archaelogical record which suggests that they were in any way unified to a level that would allow us to represent them as a political unit.

Foot

then how do you suppose they all speak the russian group of languages and use the cyrillic alphabet? plus, if records of my people (Belorussians) are correct, Minsk existed for over 2500 years! The Kievan Rus didn't come till the vikings, but there were slavs at that time.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well how do you suppose that many areas in which there used to be spoken predominantly Celtic languages people came to speak some derivative of Latin? Years of cultural assimilation do tend to have a bit of an effect, mind you.

[Foot]

Language can only take us back so far, and it is very difficult to track without corroborating evidence, which we just don't have for our period in that region. We only know that the slavic language group only appears in the AD period (can't recall the exact date). Before that we just have no evidence for that, and the evidence you put forward is no evidence at all. So we cannot make the claim on that area that would allow us to place a faction there. Nor can you.

Foot

[Oqlanth]

Well well
I first have to say hi! :D
I saw this posts months ago and wanted to join and post something but i didn't. Well After all hard work in summer I forgot about it. Now I see the post again (and it reaches 30s pages!!!) and decided to sent a reply and my comments.

First of all I have to start from the last. Georgians and Armenians don't speak Russian or Slavic language. Even Georgian isn't an indo-german language!!!

Well I noticed Pergamon is selected as one of the ten. This is good for me!... Pergamon is a good city!... I like there :D But this makes things hard for Pontos faction in EB II because of limited regions in area!

My suggestion as a new faction in EBII is Odrysians (Odrysia). I think in vanilla (i think you call unmodified and un patched R:TW as 'vanilla') CA's Thracian faction tries to resemble Odrysians.

Well about Odrysians; They were the people what Hellens called barbarians :D. Their homeland is modern Turkey's European parts and eastern Bulgaria.

Well what makes them interesting. Their history!
They are established at 5th century BC as a kingdom of a tribal confederacy of southern Thracian tribes. Well for the well known nature of Thracian people :D they were mostly seperated within next century. But they somehow achieved to stand. Later they fought with Macedons...again and again. This continues at the time of 'Thracian Basileus' Lysimachus. Lysimachus went away but Odrysains remained.

At the time of EB II starts (272BC) They were just beaten by Celts. Later on they were forced to east mostly to coastal cities of (mostly Hellenic) eastern Black Sea.

Well but things more interesting about them is they successed to return their homeland just 60 years later. They destory Tylis and they totaly 'rejoin' the game of struggle. Their wars against other powers continued till end of game time! Their story finished as a being client kingdom of Rome like many others :(

Well What is the handicaps. As you mentioned you can't increase number of regions/provinces it means there are same number of provinces at Thracia just like in vanilla... And at the beginning of the game they are fallen back to Black Sea cost. This is a problem.
But;
This can be solved as making them faction with no province like barbarian faction in BI. Well with permenant forts which is establised at the edge of Black Sea cost this can solve the problem. Putting with some good stuff which i see in EB1.1 Getai like uniting the lands to Odrysians will also make things more enjoyable and also historical.

Their capital is Seuthopolis. And in M II:TW terms it resembles a castle settlement. This is another option to move Tylis to Seuthopolis.

Another option moving place of settlement more closer to blacksea but i don't like this idea much.

And about their units. I see many units for Odrysians in EB1.1 here;
Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi (Elite Thracian Infantry)
Thraikioi Peltastai (Thraikian Peltasts)
Thraikioi Doryphoroi (Thracian Light Spearmen)
Taxeis Triballoi (Triballi Infantry)
Thraikioi Prodromoi (Thracian Medium Cavalry)
Thraikioi Hippeis (Thracian Light Cavalry)

I read something about 'unit limit' I don't know much about scripting but in EB1.1 there are already many Odrysian units.

Ahh... Last notes about their culture. They are most 'Hellenised' of Thracians. So they may have basic Hellen but especialy Macedon units because they are in touch with Macedons more than Southern Greeks.

Well in their time if you say Thracian to an Hellen or Macedon or Roman probably the culture and warriors of Odrysians will come to their mind.

Meanwhile I see a unit name as Gallo-Thracian Infantry...It will be suitable to Odrysians because after they got into contact with Celts were effected by them.

Well my another suggestion is Bithynia but after seeing Pergamun selected unfortunately it seems to be imposible.

Well my other 'minor' suggestions are Bosporan kingdom. They can be a force Sarmatians and makes them not to spread all nothern part of map.
An also another Ilyrian faction will be good...I know this makes area crowded but...
other suggestion is Scythians. Yes are are decreasing power but they achieved to stand for three more centuries!!! And they continue to struggle against Germanic tribes.
I do not know much about ancient central europa but leaving Sweboz there alone is not good :D
And one last minor suggestion is Celtiberian faction, Numantia/Arevaci.

Well may suggestions are those. If you want to ask more about Odrysians feel free to PM and mail me, I just gave overview not to fill with forum with stuff :D

Ahh one last note. I see something about Samurai :D Samurai exists after 12th century (AD!) and the tern Samurai used much more later :D

You are doing great job to creating a full historical mod like this!

Cihan

[IohannesMarcvs]

then how do you suppose they all speak the russian group of languages and use the cyrillic alphabet? plus, if records of my people (Belorussians) are correct, Minsk existed for over 2500 years! The Kievan Rus didn't come till the vikings, but there were slavs at that time.

Oh wow. This post was so ridiculous it actually compelled me to register...

Georgian is a South Caucasian language that isn't even very closely related to other Caucasian languages, such as Chechen, much less Slavic or any Indo-European languages. Armenian is related to the Slavic languages insofar as it is also Indo-European, but something like 4000 years of separate evolution separate them, and they are not particularly close because of this.

As for the Lithuanian language you mentioned: you're getting slightly closer, as the Baltic languages are fairly close to the Slavic languages, but it is still very distinct from it.

To spell it out: Georgian, Lithuanian, and Armenian are not Slavic, at all. If you've ever heard these languages spoken, or seen them written, you'd realize this. The only reason Lithuanians, Georgians, and Armenians might speak a "Russian group of languages" as you said is because of hundreds of years of Russian imperialism and promotion of language conformity. Not only in Imperial Russia, but especially in the Soviet Union; the Soviets were notorious for the promotion of Russian over indigenous languages.

And as for them all using Cyrillic? That's like saying because the Latin alphabet is based on the ancient Phoenician alphabet, every European is, in fact, Phoenician (or their modern equivalents, anyway).

I hope that helped.

[Megas Methuselah]

Oh wow. This post was so ridiculous it actually compelled me to register...

Yeah, it was pretty ridiculous, but that ridiculous?! Lol! :clown:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, it was pretty ridiculous, but that ridiculous?! Lol! :clown:

I agree, and I am not just saying that because I love seeing my new obnoxious signature take up half my screen when viewing the thread.

[bobbin]

then how do you suppose they all speak the russian group of languages and use the cyrillic alphabet? plus, if records of my people (Belorussians) are correct, Minsk existed for over 2500 years!

I think the Georgians have the own alphabet as well (lovely sample here:მხედრული) and as for Minsk being 2500 years old? 1100 is more likely.


I agree, and I am not just saying that because I love seeing my new obnoxious signature take up half my screen when viewing the thread.:laugh4:

[Foot]

I'm not sure on the heritage of the georgian alphabet, but I believe it came into existence at around the same time as the Armenian alphabet did (about 5th cent AD). The Armenian alphabet is largely based on the greek alphabet. Its about as close to cyrillic as you can possibly not get.

Foot

[bobbin]

Yep theres even a funny myth about the two (georgian & armenian) being created by the same person.
IIRC the current alphabet in use is from 11th century.

[Oqlanth]

Meanwhile I noticed my previous post has many terrible grammar errors. I can't find how to edit it. Please excuse me. I wrote it after long sleepless night!

I also noticed Seuthopolis destroyed by Celts at 279 BC just seven years before the game starts (well I am not good at memorising dates like many historians around me :D ) so the option of changing Tylis to Seuthopolis won't be historical.

But Making it horde like faction occupying some permenent castles seems to be good idea to me. At the time game start they were subject to Ptolemians. But probably they have much more independence than Baktria at 272 BC. Probably making them full ally (like Pontos or Parthians with Seleucians...trade right , military access, alliance) with Ptolemians solves this problem. Well they are also with along with Ptolemians against Seleucians :D

About station of Thracian (Odrysian Thrace) at 273 BC in game terms.... Hmm Triballi... They were also beaten by Celts forced to east and 'pacified'! To represent this there will be Eletheroi Triballi army around -probably south- of Tylis. Tylis is occupied with celtic, celto-thracian army like in EB 1.1. Well putting an expedian force of Tylis to near Odrysian occupied forts will be an idea. They did not attack and destroy Tylis just after they destoyed their own capital. Military might of early Tylis is one of the factor. Second factor is they are continuing to fighting..but with others :D

Well about units of Odrysians. Getae only join Odrysian at the very early of kingdom (5th century BC) so Getae can be only subject nation. I don't know much about game machanics but I try to say they will not be native of Odrysians.

About Triballi... Unlike Getae they never be a subject of Odrysians! But at early 3th century BC they are also beaten by Celts and forced to east. So they are suitable.

Meanwhile i noticed this in one of the previous posts in under this topic;


5.Odrysae Thraikians= Were driven into the Bosporus in 273BC by the Celts. Made a comeback and took Thrace bak in 214BC under the king Pleuratus. Would have some unique units. Daco/Getic,Hellenic/Illyrian influenced culture.
NOTE: were different to the Getae brood
Settlements(to start with)= town on the black sea, Olbia? something accurate.
would be expected to to take Tylis and Uskudama(traditional odrysae capital) from the Celts

Well first part is true but I don't think Odrysians hace Illyrian or Illyrian style military units. They amde contact with Celts and and have celtic influenced units and also Hellenic influenced units. And about Gatea and Dacia I mentioned before.
And traditional Odrysian capital is Seuthopolis and it is totaly destroyed by Celts.

Well What is Odrysia;
It is probably the name of the a clan probably not a separate tribe (is similar to Saka and Saka Rukae) which unified Thrace at 5th BC under a kingdom of a same name. But their Kingdom divided into two. Especialy southern parts known as Odrysia. For 3th BC southern Thracians mostly known as Odrysian people.


List of Rulers suitable for family members at the beginning of EB II;

Seuthes III reign 343-300(?) BC
Kotys -son of Seuthes III- did not reign as a king exiled Prince of Odrysia
Pleuratus II (Thracian) 213 BC-208 BC -Not from the royal line but he is the one who was destroyed Tylis...
Teres III -son of Kotys- reign 255-200 BC

Well Family Tree of Odrysai faction may be like this at 272 BC;

Seuthes (probably death)
I
Kotys (Faction Leader)
I
Teres (Children or very young and Faction Heir)

*Pleuratus (probably very young general at the beginning, not a family member)


bout Odrysian armies. About 1/4 of the Odrysians are are mounted. Most of them are are light skirmishers. So beginning army probably will be similar; With one heavier cavarly and two light cavalry with many (6-7) Thracian infantry.
Here is a sample idea;

Faction leader -Kotys-
Thracian Medium Cavalry
Thracian Elite Infantry
(This one is probably in a fort at coast of Black Sea which represted exiled elite of Odrysai if Faction heir -Teres- is decided to start over as an adult he may be added to this or divided this into two forts)

General -Pleuratus-
Thracian Peltast
Thracian Peltast
Thracian Light Cavalry
Thracian Light Cavalry
Thracian Light Spearmen
Thracian Light Spearmen
Thracian Light Spearmen
(this one represent more 'commoner' folk of Odrysia in plains of South eastern Thrace under Pleuratus. They are also in service of Ptolemians so ready for action! :D)

Well about traits....A forager trait will be great. Thracians were natural foragers so it will be ideal for them...There may be special traits to represent their satiation.

Well it is all for Odrysai for now.

[bovi]

I can't find how to edit it.
I believe this is because you are still a junior member of this forum. You will be upgraded after you have a handful of posts without spamming or offensive behaviour, should take a day or four after you have 10 posts I think.

[Oqlanth]

I believe this is because you are still a junior member of this forum. You will be upgraded after you have a handful of posts without spamming or offensive behaviour, should take a day or four after you have 10 posts I think.

ohh.... ok thank you :D

[Megas Methuselah]

@Bovi:

You mean if all my posts were nothing but spam since the fortunate day I joined you guys, then I'd still be a junior member? Wow, that's tough justice.

Btw, about that weird incident a long time ago, with the mirror and all, sorry, man. This apology was long overdue. :wink:

[Jolt]

Well what about the slavs? Like russians, armenians, georgians, lithuanians, belarus, ukraine, and others? might be able to pile them up, and i THINK they existed in that time. oh and if anyone asks, im russian.


then how do you suppose they all speak the russian group of languages and use the cyrillic alphabet? plus, if records of my people (Belorussians) are correct, Minsk existed for over 2500 years! The Kievan Rus didn't come till the vikings, but there were slavs at that time.

:laugh4:

If the URSS had won the Cold War, who knows if you would be saying French and British were slavs.

If you look into a thread somewhere called Armenia, you'll find my general explanation of the "origins" and evolution of the Caucasian ethnical culture from most Northern Middle East, and it's restriction in the current Caucasus region (namely, Georgia and Armenia). Even the Caucasian ethnicity per se wasn't connected to the Indo-European ethnicities, so you could say that the Germans, Italics and Greeks have had more connection to the Slav ethnicity then Georgia or Armenia, in remote times.

[Oqlanth]

:laugh4:

If the URSS had won the Cold War, who knows if you would be saying French and British were slavs.


This is the reason of it... They lost it and now there are people who thinks everyone except Galapakos Islands are or once slav!

[vonhaupold]

I think the cyrilic alphabet is based on the greek alphabet and first appears around the 9th century AD.

Simply stated, the fact that "slavic" nations use the cyrilic alphabet is irrelevant to the time frame for the game.

[a completely inoffensive name]

These are my predicted factions:

1. Pergamon
2. Bartix Bosporan Kingdom

If I get at least 50% of my predictions right you all owe me a bottle of Coca-Cola.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Only if you solve the outcome (actual number) of:


+[+]

[Sir Edward]

Only if you solve the outcome (actual number) of:


+[+]


i'll take a stab and say 42.


Also a revised list of factions I think will make it into EB2 (but will not be upset if EB team can choose more appropriate ones.

1. Belgae
2. Bosphorian Kingdom
3. Arevaci
4. Pergamon
5. Boii
6. Atropatene
7. Massyli
8. Nabataea
9. Gandhara Satrap
10. Empty for scripting purposes

[vonhaupold]

I guess I'll take a crack at this and make a prediction.

1. Pergamon
2. Galatia
3. Numidia
4. Illyria
5. Belgae
6. Syracuse
7. Massilia
8. Cetl Iberian
9. Turdetani
10. Some Thracian faction

[Oqlanth]

Well;
Here is my list;
1-Pergamon (already choosen so I put her in first)
2-Bosphorian Kingdom (why? Because interesting place... Can also be resisting force against Sarmatians)
3-Celtiberian / Arevaci (well after all Celtiberian suggests :D hehe Well Small Iberia needs another faction too :D :D )
4- Thracian / Odrysians (Well this is my suggestion... :D )
5 and 6 - I think EBII team put two factio in central Europa...But i am not sure which ones but I highly expect :D

Well I also like to see Numidians , Scythians and Illyrians but i noticed too much 'negative' comments about 'their impossibility as a playable EBII faction' I hope those imposibilites reduced in time

And I remember I gave a promise (it becomes an oath for me! :D ) that I will give detailed info about both EBII thracian units and detailed information for 'why odrysians' must be in EBII'...
And now I am continueing research :book: my another study which is on Kommanes Megaes slows down the processes... :(

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't find a good signature yet!

Just copy mine.

[Megas Methuselah]

Just copy mine.

However, mine is obviously of superior quality. Despite this, if anyone copies it, I'll issue a new proclamation demanding every orgah to flame you. Proceed at your own risk. :crowngrin:

[Tellos Athenaios]

i'll take a stab and say 42.

Wrong, but here's a hint: the code is equivalent to:


Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook?


IIRC the syntax rules.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Well I also like to see Numidians , Scythians and Illyrians but i noticed too much 'negative' comments about 'their impossibility as a playable EBII faction' I hope those imposibilites reduced in time

And I remember I gave a promise (it becomes an oath for me! :D ) that I will give detailed info about both EBII thracian units and detailed information for 'why odrysians' must be in EBII'...
And now I am continueing research :book: my another study which is on Kommanes Megaes slows down the processes... :(

Scythians were in decline and Illyrians were yet to be organized enough, but although no official statement from the team exists on the subject, it is the general consensus among the fans that some Numidian faction will be in. Though it will certainly not be just a generic "numidian" faction, but rater one of the two main numidian tribes of the period, the Maesyli and the Masaesyli (or both).


And for the Thraikians, the Odrysian kingdom is the right period (founded c. 280, after the celtic ravagings), but I'm not thoroughly convinced, though. Particularly as I don't think they expanded much beyond their original borders. Maybe your research will change my mind, though... :beam:

[Strategos Alexandros]

Only if you solve the outcome (actual number) of:


+[+]


Syn error :beam:

[Oqlanth]

Well Mithridates VI Eupator, you are right. It will be an impolite action to 'history fans' (well most of the people outside calls us history freaks :D ) to make 'numidia' faction like vanilla. Well except my apologising to using these simple generalising.

About Scythians, you are right. Last great Scythian expansion was at king Ateas times(not sure may be around 330~ BC) but as I remembered they made last good fights against Romans, Pontos and Germans (goths) from 3th Century BC till they were destroyed in 3rd century AD. So they will be nice 'conflicting and struggling faction'. They also achieved to built some other states in these times.

Well for Illyrians there was 'legendary' Pleuratus' dynasty of Illyria betweem 344 - 168 BC. You may check them they are one of the interesting faction of their time.

And about Odrysain...hehe ...I don't want to talk much about them till I completed my study but I can at least say this;
Odrysain kingdom established at 5th century BC... In 279 BC they were beaten by Celts but not destroyed and they successed at 'reestablising' their kingdoms and this makes them more interesting as a faction :D

Well meanwhile I am making research Odrysians I also find Tylis interesting :D ... Unfortunately they were not long lived faction :( ...Destroyed by Odrysai :D hehehe

Meanwhile I love Mithridates VI Eupator! i mean historical one :D ) ... He was 'Last King' hehehe! :D

And also thanks for giving advice for signature :D

[General Appo]

Well Mithridates VI Eupator, you are right. It will be an impolite action to 'history fans' (well most of the people outside calls us history freaks :D ) to make 'numidia' faction like vanilla.


You do know that the EB team are probably the biggest history freaks this side of the retirement home?

[Oqlanth]

You do know that the EB team are probably the biggest history freaks this side of the retirement home?

HEHEHE!!!... You are right!... It is good to know I am not alone! :D hehehe!!!

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Well Mithridates VI Eupator, you are right. It will be an impolite action to 'history fans' (well most of the people outside calls us history freaks :D ) to make 'numidia' faction like vanilla. Well except my apologising to using these simple generalising.

No need!:beam:
I merely wanted to clarify which Numidian factions might be considered.


About Scythians, you are right. Last great Scythian expansion was at king Ateas times(not sure may be around 330~ BC) but as I remembered they made last good fights against Romans, Pontos and Germans (goths) from 3th Century BC till they were destroyed in 3rd century AD. So they will be nice 'conflicting and struggling faction'. They also achieved to built some other states in these times..

True, I would fiund it interesting to see a Scythian faction too, struggling to regain their former glory, and drive those pesky Sauromatae from the steppes, but I think the EB-team has basically said that they won't make it, as there are other kingdoms, that were on the rise at the time, that might be in more dire need of a faction slot. And actually, this might be a good decition.


And about Odrysain...hehe ...I don't want to talk much about them till I completed my study but I can at least say this;
Odrysain kingdom established at 5th century BC... In 279 BC they were beaten by Celts but not destroyed and they successed at 'reestablising' their kingdoms and this makes them more interesting as a faction :D

Well meanwhile I am making research Odrysians I also find Tylis interesting :D ... Unfortunately they were not long lived faction :( ...Destroyed by Odrysai :D hehehe

Yes, they did reestabilsh themselves shortly after the Celtic invasion, that's what I meant. Didn't know they were as old as 5:th century, though.
I found a book in the library about the Odrysians some time ago, but didn't have time to read it thoroughly then. However, from what I gather, they were a rather warlike people, and an interesting Helleno-Thraikian mix, so though I still have my doubts, I guess they could be an Interesting faction.



Meanwhile I love Mithridates VI Eupator! i mean historical one :D ) ... He was 'Last King' hehehe! :D


Yeah, he's been my "idol" since his first guest-starring in AoE... There is something appealing in that mix of enlightened, philhellenic ruler, and despotic tyrant.:clown:

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what do you mean with "Last King"?:inquisitive:

[Hax]

Last Pontic king, IIRC.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

As a matter of fact, his son, Pharnakes, made a brief attempt to reestablish the Pontic kingdom, with some initial success, until he recieved a royal spanking by good ol' Julius Ceaesar:whip:, prompting him to utter the famous words "Veni, vidi, vici". But I guess that doesn't count...

[Oqlanth]

About 'Last King' I mean this:

http://www.michaelcurtisford.com/books.htm#The_Last_King

For "Veni, vidi, vici" you are right, Ceaser said that after when he crushed traitorous son of Mithridates VI Eupator, Pharnaces II (he betrayed his father :furious3: ) at countryside of Tokat' town Zile -Modern Turkey's city- (hehehe...If you some how can visit there you may understand what made Ceaser to say that :D )

And about Odrysai, there are great works on them especially by Bulgarian Thracologists... Unfortunately most of them are Bulgarian if you are interested take a look at them.

[paullus]

The Odrysai were not nearly significant enough in our time period to be worth including in-game. They were almost certainly subjugated to the Celts at Tylis in 272, and remained so until about 212, when they benefited most from the overthrow of Tylis. Only after 212 do we really find them engaging in much activity. So they're not good faction material. Tylis would be a better consideration, and the Scordisci or Galatian tribes would be a better faction than Tylis.

[Oqlanth]

As I said before I do not speak much about Odrysai till I finish my study but you are not right about their 'inactivity' between 272(Well truely they were crushed at 279) - 212 BE. For just little two examples:
If they were inactive how they manage to achive to rebuilt their kingdom.
if they were inactive how they fight for or against Seleucid Empire and Ptolemic Empire (i.e Siege of Thracian city Kypsela -nowaday İpsala at European penninsula of modern Turkey- against Seleucid Empire nowaday İpsala at European penninsula of modern Turkey)

Well my last opinion about Odrysai till this damm work (I can only make search brief time of a day) complete;
With Pleuratus Dynasty of Illyria Odrysains will be a good struggling factions in South Eastern Europe from 3rd century BC to 1 century BC and also will be good additions as seperate factions to EB II.

[Oqlanth]

Yes, they did reestabilsh themselves shortly after the Celtic invasion, that's what I meant. Didn't know they were as old as 5:th century, though.
I found a book in the library about the Odrysians some time ago, but didn't have time to read it thoroughly then. However, from what I gather, they were a rather warlike people, and an interesting Helleno-Thraikian mix, so though I still have my doubts, I guess they could be an Interesting faction.


Meanwhile I forgot to ask...what is the name of the book and who is it's author?

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

It was actually about thraikians in general, not only odrysians, but there seemed to be quite a lot of info in it. Though I', afraid I don't remember who wrote it, or its name. I think it was just called "Thrace" or "The Thracians", or something like that. I think its cover was red, if that can be any help. I can check it out some time when I go to the that library.
Sorry that I can't be of any more help... :embarassed:

[Oqlanth]

Ok...Thanks anyway :D

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I checked out the library website today, and in a twist of irony, though I couldn't find the book I read first, I stumbled upon one called "The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace", by one Z. H. Archibald. Don't know if it's any good, though.
Anyway, good luck with your research:book:

[Oqlanth]

Thank you Bassileus Mithridates VI Eupator :D
I am going to check that book.

And thanks again ;)

Cihan

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Glad I could help! :beam:

[Cyrus]

I was thinking maybe they could include another anatolian faction,like the kingdom of Paphlagonia to help pontus and the other "minor" factions get rid of the seleucids.Also a faction north of the gaeti would be nice to kinda limit sauromatae expansion in that area,something like another steppe faction.
Since i dont know much about that area i cant say what faction could be there......

[ziegenpeter]

Scythians I guess...

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I was thinking maybe they could include another anatolian faction,like the kingdom of Paphlagonia to help pontus and the other "minor" factions get rid of the seleucids.Also a faction north of the gaeti would be nice to kinda limit sauromatae expansion in that area,something like another steppe faction.
Since i dont know much about that area i cant say what faction could be there......

They've already added Pergamon in that area, so there will be more minor factions there. If yet another were to be added, I think the kingdom of Bithynia or the kingdom of Cappadocia are better candidates, as their position would not be as locked as the Paphlagonians, and they were far more historically significant.

The Scythians are quite unlikely, they were in decline. The possabilities I see in that are are either the Bosphoran kingdom, or possably the Bastarnoz, however the bastarnoz were probably not that united, and not enough is known about them, to make them a likely candidate for a faction.

[Cyrus]

Yeah your probably right,paphlagonia would however be a very very difficult campaign right?
Plus what is the bosphoran kingdom? also i thought of another faction id like to see,the scandinavians.
i know they were just a bunch of little villages but they'd make an awesome campaign on very hard\very hard.I'd also like to see an other nomad faction.something like the schytians(yes i now they had already been whiped out by the sarmatians but something similar to them).

[General Appo]

[QUOTE=Cyrus;2044222] also i thought of another faction id like to see,the scandinavians.
i know they were just a bunch of little villages but they'd make an awesome campaign on very hard\very hard.[/QOUTE]

As a fellow scandinvian I can say that I would be horribly depressed if some sort of generic scandinavian faction was included.
Firstly, there is about no evidence what so ever of what was going on in scandinavia at the time.
Second, the little evidence there is all makes it very clear that there was nothing even resembling some sort of unity.
Third, there was just never even any half-assed attempts at any sorts of expansion in any way. Fourth, it wouldn´t be a good campaign at all. Getting a half-decent economy would take about 200 years, you would probably one have like 2 or 3 units, and you´ll be lucky if the Sweboz don´t wipe you out in the first couple of years.

[MeinPanzer]

Plus what is the bosphoran kingdom?

I'd think that the most likely candidate for inclusion in the northern Pontic littoral would definitely be the Bosporans. The Bosporan kingdom was basically a group of Greek cities in what is today the Crimea which were united under a king. They were a major force in the northern Black Sea from the Archaic period, and were still quite strong in the EB timeframe. The inhabitants were culturally mixed, and they possessed aspects of both Iranian steppe culture (such as costume and arms) and Greek culture (Greek language, gods, etc.). Dio Chrusostom writes about visiting a Greek city on the norther Black sea coast in the first century AD (Borysthenes, which was actually a city located by a Getic hinterland, but that's beside the point) and he comments on the peculiar mixture of these cultures he found there:


Well, as I was saying, I chanced to be strolling outside the city, and there came to meet me from within the walls some of the people of Borysthenes, as was their custom. Thereupon Callistratus at first came riding by us on horseback on his way from somewhere outside of town, but when he had gone a short distance beyond us, he dismounted, and, entrusting his horse to his attendant, he himself drew near in very proper fashion, having drawn his arm beneath his mantle. Suspended from his girdle he had a great cavalry sabre, and he was wearing trousers and all the rest of the Scythian costume, and from his shoulders there hung a small black cape of thin material, as is usual with the people of Borysthenes. In fact the rest of their apparel in general is regularly black, through the influence of a certain tribe of Scythians, the Blackcloaks, so named by the Greeks doubtless for that very reason.

...Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart.


It's interesting to note the dichotomies presented here: a man who customarily rides a horse around the city, carries a sidearm, and wears garb like a nomad, but carries his cloak about himself as is good Greek custom and knows the Iliad by heart. The Bosporan kingdom is interesting for this reason - the military especially included, as you'd imagine, a mixture of steppe troops and also Greek troop types.

[keravnos]

MeinPanzer, thank you for that excerpt. About the Bosporikoi I would also add Thraikians and Celts (The Keltoskythai that Strabo speaks of) to that mix. Protoslavs also.

Bastarnae, deffinitely so, add them in, but I am not certain of their exact nationality, as they probably were a mix themselves. Germanic with some Celt admixture and armed "with a white thureos, romphaia or sica and two javelins".

Some reading for those inclined...

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/Sarmatians.html

[MeinPanzer]

MeinPanzer, thank you for that excerpt. About the Bosporikoi I would also add Thraikians and Celts (The Keltoskythai that Strabo speaks of) to that mix. Protoslavs also.

I'm skeptical about the Protoslavs (I've read many hypotheses about the genesis of the Slavic people, but I've not seen much solid evidence for where they can be placed in the EB timeframe), but you're absolutely right abou, after all, the Spartocids, who were directly related to the royal house of Thrace, and Celtic influence is quite evident in the archaeology of the northern Black Sea littoral as well.


Bastarnae, deffinitely so, add them in, but I am not certain of their exact nationality, as they probably were a mix themselves. Germanic with some Celt admixture and armed "with a white thureos, romphaia or sica and two javelins".

Some reading for those inclined...

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/Sarmatians.html

The problem with the Bastarnae is that so little is known about them and their societal structure, who they were, or even whether they were a unified front at all. Also, your description of armaments postdates the EB timeframe by at least a century and probably reflects the Bastarnae after extensive Dacian influence - keep in mind that they didn't even move into the northwestern Black Sea region until the late third century BC.

[Majd il-Romani]

I think either Basternae, Skythians, or Bosphorus oughta be in to balance out the sauros and to populate the NE map. People are pushing for cappadocia and aechean/aetolians but those areas have enough factions already

[General Appo]

I think either Basternae, Skythians, or Bosphorus oughta be in to balance out the sauros and to populate the NE map.


Why not all three? :idea2:
Seriously, Boshporus I can almost bet will be. Bastarnae...I think the EB wants them in, the only question is if they can find enough info to actually make a half-decent representation of them.
Skythians in say Olbia...it´s a possibility, but I´m not sure.
One or two Numidian faction will be in, this I can almost guarantee. Numidia was after all this close to making it into EB1, so not having them now with 10 extra faction slots would just be wierd.

[Majd il-Romani]

yeah i'm almost certain that 1 or 2 Numidian factions will make it in, plus Bosporos, Belgae, and a Celtiberian Tribe

I am absolutley sure that Pergamon isn't gonna be in.

[General Appo]

Yeah, me too. That would be just like Foot.

[Majd il-Romani]

I mean where does everybody get this crazy notion that Pergoman is going to be included?

[Ibrahim]

I mean where does everybody get this crazy notion that Pergoman is going to be included?

there si a stele up there you know:clown:

[General Appo]

There is this thing called jesting you know. But I´m sure someone like Ibra would never have heard of it.

[Foot]

I think that the clown smiley at the end of his post suggests that Ibrahim has heard of it and was just joking on Majd's joke. Jenga joke's in fact.

Foot

[Cyrus]

Ok so jokes aside,would it be possible to have an other eastern faction.I dunno maybe the corasms(population more or less between baktria and pahlava)?or even a proto indian faction?maybe a small northern kingdom?

[Foytaz]

More than new factions I'd glad to see more diversity to already existed ones. Civic wars and revolts would be nice and exciting for gameplay. Big facions such as Seleucids, Ptolemaics should be threaten by such events quite often. Same standards should be applied to SPQR\Empire. What I like about EB is concern for the details and I hope next release will keep that way too.

[Ibrahim]

@Appo: I was kidding?:inquisitive:

as for new factions in the east: why not elevate a client kingdom/satrapy the seleukids had into a faction? Baktria is already that way...

[Cyrus]

Yes that i think is a good idea.cicil wars however would require some stuff like non playable factions or something(and in the faq it says there will be no such thing) but im shure there can be a way to arrange it,maybe with a huge civil revolt of (like for caesar's civil war) all greece,and some italy settelments become rebel. just an idea of course.
ps foytaz if you dont mind answering where are u from?

[Cyrus]

sorry i forgot to quote foytaz's post ,that's what i was referring to

[Ibrahim]

Yes that i think is a good idea.cicil wars however would require some stuff like non playable factions or something(and in the faq it says there will be no such thing) but im shure there can be a way to arrange it,maybe with a huge civil revolt of (like for caesar's civil war) all greece,and some italy settelments become rebel. just an idea of course.
ps foytaz if you dont mind answering where are u from?

no, I meant a playable faction.

[Cyrus]

???????????????
What?
i said i was talking about foytaz s post about civil wars.

[Ibrahim]

???????????????
What?
i said i was talking about foytaz s post about civil wars.

my bad. i was confused here.

[Foytaz]

ps foytaz if you dont mind answering where are u from?

Poland>Upper Silesia>Tychy

[Majd il-Romani]

Yes that i think is a good idea.cicil wars however would require some stuff like non playable factions or something(and in the faq it says there will be no such thing) but im shure there can be a way to arrange it,maybe with a huge civil revolt of (like for caesar's civil war) all greece,and some italy settelments become rebel. just an idea of course.
ps foytaz if you dont mind answering where are u from?

No it won't. In M2 generals with low loyalty became rebel generals, so even if a giant civil war won't be very possible you could still have the various rogue generals and infighting and etc. included without even having to add to the game at all!

[Foytaz]

Rebellion\civil war should work as counter-faction and player'd possess the possibility to choose the side as it was in MTW (back the rebels or not). Hidden court intrigues were so common at that times and in huge empires as Ptolemaics and Seleucids they were 'daily basis' routines.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Does anyone have any new ideas since stele 7 has come out?

[General Appo]

Yeah, I suspect the Ptolemaioi might be a faction in this version as well. Quite a dissapointment if you ask me.

[Celtic_Punk]

We need another celtic faction. perhaps gallic? or maybe Goidllic or Caledonia?