View Full Version : New factions?
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
[
7]
8
How did I miss that the Basternae were already confirmed?!? And that's AWESOME, by the way!
anubis88
08-16-2010, 17:52
Not AFAIK
WinsingtonIII
08-16-2010, 22:56
How did I miss that the Basternae were already confirmed?!? And that's AWESOME, by the way!
Keep in mind that Moros was the one who said it.... If he's always telling the truth then the Spice Girls are likely to be the next confirmed faction.
On topic, I'm not sure why the Masaesylians aren't mentioned more as a possible faction. They are regularly mentioned in the Massylian preview as the major enemy of the Massylians, and it seems to me that this is a situation similar to the Aedui and Arverni, where it would be historically inaccurate for the team to include one without the other.
Keep in mind that Moros was the one who said it.... If he's always telling the truth then the Spice Girls are likely to be the next confirmed faction.
On topic, I'm not sure why the Masaesylians aren't mentioned more as a possible faction. They are regularly mentioned in the Massylian preview as the major enemy of the Massylians, and it seems to me that this is a situation similar to the Aedui and Arverni, where it would be historically inaccurate for the team to include one without the other.
To make it up I'll tell you some true facts. The spice girls will obviously not be a faction. What nutcase came up with that? The Masaesylians however will not be a faction though. It's a bit much for the area. The Basternae were not confirmed in the past, nor was it by me. It was a not too clear joke referring to a post from a little earlier.
WinsingtonIII
08-16-2010, 23:38
To make it up I'll tell you some true facts. The spice girls will obviously not be a faction. What nutcase came up with that? The Masaesylians however will not be a faction though. It's a bit much for the area. The Basternae were not confirmed in the past, nor was it by me. It was a not too clear joke referring to a post from a little earlier.
Haha there's no need to make it up, I (and I think most others) like your jokes
Thanks for the info though, looks like I'm going to have to make up a new list, I was very convinced the Masaesylians would make it, but yes it isn't exactly an area that needs three factions when it's already going to have two.
stratigos vasilios
08-17-2010, 03:32
The spice girls will obviously not be a faction.
WHAT? That's it, I'm no longer interested in EB anymore. That's what I was really hanging out for...
They might be working on EBII's new theme song though?
So what's going on with the Bastarnae? (Apart from their already dead).
They were ruled out, but the team changed their mind after new research came to light. Now they're in, and they're removing the Romani to make room for them. Seems a bit hard on the guys who did the work for the Romani preview, but I guess they gotta do what they gotta do.
So what's going on with the Bastarnae? (Apart from their already dead).
They might or might not be in. Nothing official has been stated I believe. Either way if not as a faction at least a regional will be in. That's as much as I can say and as much as had been confirmed earlier.
Aw damn, they haven't been confirmed? So much for my hats, t-shirts, and matching underwear.
Aw damn, they haven't been confirmed? So much for my hats, t-shirts, and matching underwear.
I find the elaborate and carefully worded follow up to what was clearly an off-hand joke a fair indicator they are in. Just pop psych 101 of course, what would I know?
So keep the pants on, just for the moment.
I love how people really have no idea when I'm talking truth, lies or a mix of both.
I'd make a pretty advocate or minister of propaganda orsomething.
stratigos vasilios
08-18-2010, 02:00
Maybe just stick to being the minister of pie for now?...
I love how people really have no idea when I'm talking truth, lies or a mix of both.....
Really? Or is this another elaborate ruse?
...I'd make a pretty advocate or minister of propaganda ...
...or a Bastarnae faction developer...
Maybe just stick to being the minister of pie for now?...
king, my son, king!
Cute Wolf
08-18-2010, 06:29
I Highly doubt they'll put Bastarnae factions in...
anubis88
08-18-2010, 10:13
This is a thread of mine that i stumbled upon while retracing my steps on these forums;
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?86601-Kingdom-of-Noricum-as-a-faction&highlight=
Teleklos Archelau states that the Kingdom of Noricum could be considered for EB II with a very ambiguus smile at the end :)
I know it's kinda a crowded now with the Boii, but who knows :D
Cute Wolf
08-18-2010, 11:29
Moros will reserve a slot to his spice girls factions in great britain... I'm looking forward to hot babes clad in bikini :clown:
have all the new faction slops been filled by the team or are they still considering some?
anubis88
08-19-2010, 14:23
I think all of them were already decided...
DeathFinger
08-21-2010, 10:20
Well, the problem is: will we play Victoria Beckham, Emma Bunton, Melanie Brown, Melanie Chisholm or Geri Halliwell? It wouldn't be historically accurate to play the Spice Girls united at this time, ya know.
With victoria you'd get a plastic reform...
Moros will reserve a slot to his spice girls factions in great britain... I'm looking forward to hot babes clad in bikini :clown:
Well, the problem is: will we play Victoria Beckham, Emma Bunton, Melanie Brown, Melanie Chisholm or Geri Halliwell? It wouldn't be historically accurate to play the Spice Girls united at this time, ya know.
With victoria you'd get a plastic reform...
What the hell? You decide to put an easter egg faction? that was a waste of 1 faction slot!!! :furious3: that slot will be better used as "free people" factions or such! representing underpowered faction that should't be eleutheroi!!!
Pretty sure they're joking :p
But yes having previews or little sneak peeks instead of reading about spice girls, would be better XD
But they were the next preview. ~:(
But they were the next preview. ~:(
The team must understand us:
We are suffering withdrawal symptoms from June, on top of that the hot sun is giving a bad time to everyone, at least give us the spice girls' gaesatae :D
The team must understand us:
We are suffering withdrawal symptoms from June, on top of that the hot sun is giving a bad time to everyone, at least give us the spice girls' gaesatae :D
lol. I think the next faction preview is going to answer ALOT of questions. Take your time boys, EBII is like Whisky, the longer it's left the better it seems to get.
What the hell? You decide to put an easter egg faction? that was a waste of 1 faction slot!!! :furious3: that slot will be better used as "free people" factions or such! representing underpowered faction that should't be eleutheroi!!!
Surely you're not being serious...
What the hell? You decide to put an easter egg faction? that was a waste of 1 faction slot!!! :furious3: that slot will be better used as "free people" factions or such! representing underpowered faction that should't be eleutheroi!!!
Well, how the hell else are we supposed to get Transformers, Mega Man, and Brock Samson in the mod? Look, if you can't provide real solutions to the limitations of hard coding, then you're just going to have to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Aw damn, they haven't been confirmed? So much for my hats, t-shirts, and matching underwear.
I did not need to read that, thank you very much...:jester:
check yourself before you wreck yourself
I do believe this needs to be one of the loading screen quotes for EB2.
athanaric
08-23-2010, 12:37
I did not need to read that, thank you very much...:jester:
What? You don't have little phalangites on your underpants? Shame on you...
What? You don't have little phalangites on your underpants? Shame on you...
no, wait, what? why would you think that? do you go into my closet every once in a while? in which case, I'll have to reconsider living in a dorm...
:clown: :clown: :jester:
but seriously, no, I don't have any.
You don't have little phalangites on your underpants?Interesting idea for the Europa Barbarorum Swag thread...
Megas Methuselah
08-28-2010, 07:56
I would wear it. Sounds sexy. You should have two opposing phalanxes clashing at the crotch area.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
08-28-2010, 19:19
Make sure the sarissae are very long though.
Back to topic!:laugh4:
Been playing a Carthaginian campaign lately, I have to say I am really looking forward to the Numidian faction in EBII.
Make sure the sarissae are very long though.
Back to topic!:laugh4:
I'm secure enough that I don't need phalangites to emphasize the size of my crown jewels-thank you miss. :clown:
@ Brennus: I am too. I gotta fight some berbers as an Arabian outside of IJ. :wall:
M to the A
08-30-2010, 06:45
I needs more previews, its been a long time! I'm hoping for some Belgae tribe, maybe the Nervii or Bellovaci
I"d love to see a full list of new factions... IMO it is time to see them all.
I've read some rumors about Kartli ( Caucasian Iberia) as an almost confirmed faction for EB2. I wonder whether it's true or not...
I needs more previews, its been a long time! I'm hoping for some Belgae tribe, maybe the Nervii or Bellovaci
I think if a single Belgic tribe is going to be confirmed it is likely to be the Atrebates or Suessiones, from the historical record we hear that both expanded into Britain.
I"d love to see a full list of new factions... IMO it is time to see them all.
imo it's time for a preview of a new faction, the last ones were all of EB1 factions^^
IMO no number or requests is gonna make the EBII team release another preview ahead of their schedule. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day.
I've read some rumors about Kartli ( Caucasian Iberia) as an almost confirmed faction for EB2. I wonder whether it's true or not...
I really doubt it. Did they expand or wage war in any significant way during the time period? If Wikipedia is to be believed, the most they accomplished was to conquer Egrisi. Of course, that is more than can be said of many factions in EB who didn't get any larger than their starting territories. They did manage to retain varying degrees of indpenedence throughout the whole time period, which is also a plus.
I worry most about their strategic situation in the game. Two single-province factions, both of whom MUST inevitably go to war with the monstrous Gray Death, starting side by side. You know they're going to slug it out for years and years before either of them turn their sights beyond the Caucasus. And by the time there is only one left standing, if the Seleucids haven't already gobbled the other up, they'll still have to face the most powerful empire in the known world to get anywhere. I guess it seems to me like a situation that could only be fun if one of the two Caucasian factions is controlled by the player. Otherwise it will be like the Arveni and Aedui in Gaul: neither side makes any progress for decades, until finally the player or some other faction intervenes and wipes one off the map.
Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps the AI in M2TW is such that small, neighboring factions are less likely to engage in "trench warfare". Perhaps small factions can live side by side in harmony, focusing on the bigger problems that they both face. Maybe I'm just looking at it all wrong. But I can't help but be skeptical and fear that having both Armenia and Kartli as factions in EB2 will simply cripple both of them.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
08-31-2010, 01:21
I really doubt it. Did they expand or wage war in any significant way during the time period? If Wikipedia is to be believed, the most they accomplished was to conquer Egrisi. Of course, that is more than can be said of many factions in EB who didn't get any larger than their starting territories. They did manage to retain varying degrees of indpenedence throughout the whole time period, which is also a plus.
I worry most about their strategic situation in the game. Two single-province factions, both of whom MUST inevitably go to war with the monstrous Gray Death, starting side by side. You know they're going to slug it out for years and years before either of them turn their sights beyond the Caucasus. And by the time there is only one left standing, if the Seleucids haven't already gobbled the other up, they'll still have to face the most powerful empire in the known world to get anywhere. I guess it seems to me like a situation that could only be fun if one of the two Caucasian factions is controlled by the player. Otherwise it will be like the Arveni and Aedui in Gaul: neither side makes any progress for decades, until finally the player or some other faction intervenes and wipes one off the map.
Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps the AI in M2TW is such that small, neighboring factions are less likely to engage in "trench warfare". Perhaps small factions can live side by side in harmony, focusing on the bigger problems that they both face. Maybe I'm just looking at it all wrong. But I can't help but be skeptical and fear that having both Armenia and Kartli as factions in EB2 will simply cripple both of them.
Aedui and Arverni start as enemies in EB, and their weakening each other in incessant wars is pretty much how it was; the only problem really comes with who ends up crushing them in EB. Either the Lusotanan or the Sweboz in unencumbered overdrive. Hopefully a Celtiberian faction will put the brakes on the Lusotanan, and a second 'Germanic' faction likewise for Sweboz....and then the Romani can smash the Gauls instead :inquisitive:
Kartli might be a good idea, if for no other reason than that they would tend to stop the hayasdan from simply expanding Northward - and a more reasonable starting diplomatic stance might stop them from kicking ten bales out of each other...
Horatius Flaccus
08-31-2010, 10:41
I've asked this (about the diplomatic stance of Kartli) before and the response of Foot was:
Kartli was in an alliance with AS against Hayasdan. But it wasn't an active war as far as we can tell. Hayasdan had just supported the King of Kappadokia against the AS, and so the AS needed to keep an eye on Hayasdan. To do this they gave support to Kartli. They weren't at war, but they weren't best of friends either. Had Hayasdan become agressive, she would have been caught in a pincer between the two nations. Kartli, on the otherhand, had a bit more free reign and was beginning to move into the colchis region (which, at the time, was ruled by a lot of little minor princes, rather than a unified land.
Foot
Among the most recent previews were several Boii previews. Best I can remember, they were not in EB1...
FYI, there are 3 almost-but-not-quite-ready previews coming down the pipe.
I think if a single Belgic tribe is going to be confirmed it is likely to be the Atrebates or Suessiones, from the historical record we hear that both expanded into Britain.
Atrebates fleed to Britain due to Caesar no? So that's not really the same thing.
I've just mentioned that it would be time for a new preview, thus that I expect the EB team is going to release one shortly. who am I to demand a preview, I'm not new to the modding scene ;) . concerning "new" factions, It's been long since a faction has been officially announced.
SlickNicaG69
08-31-2010, 14:05
I would like to see the trans-Alpine Gauls represented as three separate factions: Allobroges, Celts, and Belgae.
I would like the Illyrians properly represented.
I would like to the see the Numidians and Massylians presented after Carthage's fall.
I would like to see the "Scythians."
I would like to see the Saba eliminated as a faction.
I would like to see the Indians introduced.
I would like to see the other "Successors:" Bythnia and Pergamon.
I would like to see the Thracians.
I've asked this (about the diplomatic stance of Kartli) before and the response of Foot was:
So Foot's answers seems like more "YES to Kartli" than " NO"
:idea2:
Well err... thanks for sharing what you would like, I guess...
SlickNicaG69
08-31-2010, 14:51
Well now that I have shared, what do you about my thoughts?
Well we're not going to tell you our secret factions, just because you shared your opinion...
stratigos vasilios
08-31-2010, 14:58
Well we're not going to tell you our secret factions, just because you shared your opinion...
*Opens oven, takes out freshly baked pie*
How about now?...
SlickNicaG69
08-31-2010, 15:13
Why do you antagonize me Moros? I didn't ask for anything besides your opinion on my own...
*Opens oven, takes out freshly baked pie*
How about now?...
Blast! Okay, but in pm only. And you don't tell anyone! ~;)
Mediolanicus
08-31-2010, 16:18
I would like to see the trans-Alpine Gauls represented as three separate factions: Allobroges, Celts, and Belgae.
Why?
"Celts" and "Belgae" were not one people. And why are the Allobroges not Celts according to you?
I would like the Illyrians properly represented.
How?
"The Illyrians" can't be a faction, since they historically weren't a single faction. A single tribe would only be possible when the engine would allow for a much more detailed Illyrian region (more provinces, for example).
The Illyrian regions will have an Illyrian feel to them and will give access to Illyrian units. I don't think the M2TW engine can offer more.
I would like to the see the Numidians and Massylians presented after Carthage's fall.
How?
Script? Is it possible within the limits of the engine?
I would like to see the "Scythians."
Which?
They have their units. And perhaps the team have something new for that region too. We don't know all factions yet.
I would like to see the Saba eliminated as a faction.
Why?
Because they are a faction at the edge of the map and don't conquer the world?
Or because they don't interest you personally?
Or do you have a valid argument here?
I would like to see the Indians introduced.
How?
A faction is impossible (culture, only 3 provinces on the map,...).
The character of the regions and the units are Indian. How to improve this?
I would like to see the other "Successors:" Bythnia and Pergamon.
4 new factions announced; 2 of them Hellenistic.
I would like to see the Thracians.
Which? How? See Illyrians, Scythians and Indians.
Atrebates fleed to Britain due to Caesar no? So that's not really the same thing.
I don't believe so, there were two populations of Atrebates either side of the channel prior to the Gallic Wars. Two things suggest this, firstly we are informed by the historical sources that Commois fled Gaul to Britain in order to join his own people, considering that Commios had been waging a succesful Guerilla campaign by recruiting his own people in Gaul that suggests that Atrebatic peoples were present on either side of the channel. Secondly the archaeology of southern Britain does not suggest that there was a large scale migration of new peoples in the small timescale of the Gallic wars, thus there must have either been only a few (very very influential) individuals or the Atrebates must have been arriving in Britain for a long time before the Gallic wars.
I don't believe so, there were two populations of Atrebates either side of the channel prior to the Gallic Wars. Two things suggest this, firstly we are informed by the historical sources that Commois fled Gaul to Britain in order to join his own people, considering that Commios had been waging a succesful Guerilla campaign by recruiting his own people in Gaul that suggests that Atrebatic peoples were present on either side of the channel. Secondly the archaeology of southern Britain does not suggest that there was a large scale migration of new peoples in the small timescale of the Gallic wars, thus there must have either been only a few (very very influential) individuals or the Atrebates must have been arriving in Britain for a long time before the Gallic wars.
You might be right, I'm no specialist in this part of history. Just seemed to remember something else. I don't have time to look into this, so I'll just thrust your judgement.
I'll just thrust your judgement
:laugh4:
Regarding the Atrebates, assuming they were present on both sides of the English Channel at EB's start date, would it be reasonable to represent both groups as a single faction? That is, were they under the same leadership?
I don't think any of us think they were already on both sides of the channel at the game's start. Possibly they weren't even in the region the Romans called Belgica yet.
I would like to see the trans-Alpine Gauls represented as three separate factions: Allobroges, Celts, and Belgae.
Thats just bizzare, why did you seperate the Allobroges from the rest of the Gauls? Why do you think having the Belgae lumped into one group is acceptable considering we know of numerous individual independent tribes? Seriously, Celts?
I would like the Illyrians properly represented.
So do we, it just seems you have a different veiw on how to do that.
I would like to the see the Numidians and Massylians presented after Carthage's fall.
Do you mean as a emergent faction? That wouldn't make any sense, the Massylians coexisted with Carthage, they didn't just spring to life at the end of the Punic wars. Also the Massylii were numidians (or at least a part of them) so why would you then want a seperate "Numidian" faction?
I would like to see the "Scythians."
If you mean as a faction then it won't happen. They were very weak and with the Bosporan Kingdom and the Sauromatae already factions they wouldn't be bringing anything new that could merit their inclusion.
I would like to see the Saba eliminated as a faction.
Well your entitled to your opinion but we respectfully dissagree.
I would like to see the Indians introduced.
The fact that the Mauryans territory was mostly off the map means they won't be included.
I would like to see the other "Successors:" Bythnia and Pergamon.
Well Pergamon is already in so you can at least be happy on that front.
I would like to see the Thracians.
You already do, the Getai are Thracian.
I think if we did include a faction named celts, it would be rather overpowered and would consume Rome within a few decades. Then it would carry on to absorb everything it is path until it meets the Indians. I guess they'd be fighting to completely conquer our map. Sound like a cool game though. Perhaps we should include a faction called the Chinese and Africans as well? Damn the Italian factions will be a hard one...
Mediolanicus
08-31-2010, 17:44
I think if we did include a faction named celts, it would be rather overpowered and would consume Rome within a few decades. Then it would carry on to absorb everything it is path until it meets the Indians. I guess they'd be fighting to completely conquer our map. Sound like a cool game though. Perhaps we should include a faction called the Chinese and Africans as well? Damn the Italian factions will be a hard one...
No mention of either Bartix or the Spice Girls. Moros, you disappoint me :p
I'll just thrust your judgement.
Your a braver man than me, lol.
With regards to B_Ray, although it is possible that they were under the same leadership, as represented by the tale of Commios, I agree with Moros that they were unlikely to have been present on either side of the channel in 272BC. Personally I favour a date of arrival of c100BC in line with the Gallo-Belgic type C coinage and the funerary evidence from Westhampnett in West Sussex.
No mention of either Bartix or the Spice Girls. Moros, you disappoint me :p
I think there was already enough silliness posted on these last two pages...
oudysseos
08-31-2010, 22:08
I would like to see the trans-Alpine Gauls represented as three separate factions: Allobroges, Celts, and Belgae.
I would like the Illyrians properly represented.
I would like to the see the Numidians and Massylians presented after Carthage's fall.
I would like to see the "Scythians."
I would like to see the Saba eliminated as a faction.
I would like to see the Indians introduced.
I would like to see the other "Successors:" Bythnia and Pergamon.
I would like to see the Thracians.
Either you're trying to be funny or you really are this poorly informed. Either way, fail.
Like an Irish deerhound on the trail of a stag one mention of Iron Age Britain and oudysseos follows the scent to the thread.
With regards to SLickNiga I likewise see little point in the Saba, they were not terribly expansionist and I would prefer to see them replaced by a Celtic faction in Europe, however, I would support their inclusion as they do represent a long lasting cultural and political force in Arabia and their removal would prompt people to call for the removal of the Casse, a faction who barely interact with the rest of the game. Thus I would rather see the Saba stay in, if only to give credibility to the Casse inclusion. Also, why on earth meld the Averni and Aedui into a single "Celt" faction but leave the Allobroges as a seperate faction. If the Belgae were included (OH GOD PLEASE!) it wouldn't be a bad idea to balance out the Aedui-Belgae alliance (forgive me if I have interpreted the political situation in Gaul incorrectly) with that of the Arverni-Allobroges.
On another note what about the Aetolians?
On another note what about the Aetolians?
This was posted on the Faction Speculation Thread over at TWCenter.
We've certainly considered adding the Aitolians as a faction. We could do them up a nice unit roster, it would work fairly well. Except that they wouldn't even touch a rebel region. They would be entirely sandwiched between other factions. So we're doing something slightly different instead, only I can't tell you yet what we're doing...
I have no idea how to interpret that, but it seems to be pretty clear in implicating that the Aitolian League will not be a playable faction.
I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
09-01-2010, 01:25
I've asked this (about the diplomatic stance of Kartli) before and the response of Foot was:
Originally Posted by Foot
Kartli was in an alliance with AS against Hayasdan. But it wasn't an active war as far as we can tell. Hayasdan had just supported the King of Kappadokia against the AS, and so the AS needed to keep an eye on Hayasdan. To do this they gave support to Kartli. They weren't at war, but they weren't best of friends either. Had Hayasdan become agressive, she would have been caught in a pincer between the two nations. Kartli, on the otherhand, had a bit more free reign and was beginning to move into the colchis region (which, at the time, was ruled by a lot of little minor princes, rather than a unified land.
Foot
....and Kartli did, eventually, suffer from interference by the Hayasdan, becoming a 'vassal' Kingdom (with a son (Artaxias, known in the medieval Georgian chronicles as Arshak) of the Armenian King - possibly Artavasdes I, being made King (and marrying into the previous royal family).
So, a 'Kingdom of Kartli' incorporating Colchis? Who knows? I think the danger would be in having too powerful a faction that, as has been suggested, weakens Hayasdan too much....Although it is, perhaps, no accident that Armenia's greatest expansion occured reasonably soon after the 'subjugation' of Kartli...?
My spider sneses tingle when Kartli comes up. Dunno why but my guess is they were a borderline faction for EB with an "interesting" location on the map, a sweet (if not quite iconic) faction specific unit and some historical action.
anubis88
09-01-2010, 08:45
This was posted on the Faction Speculation Thread over at TWCenter.
I have no idea how to interpret that, but it seems to be pretty clear in implicating that the Aitolian League will not be a playable faction.
I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.
Well the EB team told us a lot of times they found a new way to interpret the Koinon, so my guess would be one of the options will be to "evolve" into an alliance simmilar to the Aetolian league. They've said many times you won't be able to conquer much with this faction without giving something up, so it could mean that the you form some sort of league... I dunno :)
Horatius Flaccus
09-01-2010, 14:19
Regarding Kartli: I think you could represent them moving into the Colchis region by giving them the PSF of that province.
Captain Trek
09-03-2010, 03:26
I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. (emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, but that is just plain old wrong and you should probably double-check just how far south the Ptolemaioi go... Because they have Triakontaschoinos and Erythraia, at most you could get rid of three provinces: Saba, Qataban and Dt'amat, before you'd have start doing some serious fiddling with those two Ptolemaioi territories (along with the rebel territories of Ma'in and Zufar), which would all have to inflate and change shape in order to get rid of Kush and Hadramaut without leaving "gaps" in the campaign map...
That's only five territories (again, any further north than that and you start shaving off the southern end of the Ptolemaioi) and quite a hell of a lot of work for very little gain I would think...
Also, your claim that this represents the "southern third" of the campaign map is just absurd... The image of the EB campaign map I have open right now is 1546 pixels tall. A third of this is 1030 pixels and running a line across the map at that point I discover that you've just cut away almost the entireity of the Ptolemaioi and one Karthadastim province, the line sitting right on top of the mouth of the Nile and slicing away most of the Kart province of Syrthim...
Indeed, running a line across at 1400 pixels (the southern tip of the Ptolemaioi's southernmost province of Erythraia) and dividing 1400 by 1545 and multiplying by 100 to see what percentage of the map this represents, it actually comes to 90.6% of the map (or 88.9% of the map measuring from the southernmost tip of Ptolemaioi's second-southernmost province of Triakontaschoinos... So it's actually the southern tenth of the map that is solely inhabited by Saba, not the botton third... Quite exaggeration on your part if I may say so...
I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.
The map was made long before the Saba were a faction in EB. In fact the opposite is actually true, one of the reasons Saba was chosen as a faction was to fill the gap down there in the map, which before just turned into a warzone between the AS and Ptolemaioi.
Captain Trek
09-03-2010, 10:34
The map was made long before the Saba were a faction in EB. In fact the opposite is actually true, one of the reasons Saba was chosen as a faction was to fill the gap down there in the map, which before just turned into a warzone between the AS and Ptolemaioi. (emphasis mine)
Huh... really? Hmm, I suppose AS must've been blitzing down the right side of the Eremos, following the Persian Gulf, while the 'tollies went down the left, following the Red Sea... Eventually the two would meet in the middle (probably right around where Saba is now) and start duking it out... is that right?
imo the map size is very good and realisic to that point that while sailing around africa was possible but seldom practiced, sailing around arabia was far less seldom, which I find the most important thing about the map size^^
-someone who does not play Ptolemies or Saba(but is not in favor of kicking saba)
imo the map size is very good and realisic to that point that while sailing around africa was possible but seldom practiced, sailing around arabia was far less seldom, which I find the most important thing about the map size^^
Sailing around africa? As far as we know no one accomplished that before the middle ages, sailing round arabia was practiced regularly.
Huh... really? Hmm, I suppose AS must've been blitzing down the right side of the Eremos, following the Persian Gulf, while the 'tollies went down the left, following the Red Sea... Eventually the two would meet in the middle (probably right around where Saba is now) and start duking it out... is that right?
Yeah pretty much, in older versions of the map Eremos in Arabia was a seprate province that could be captured, so you just ended up with a load of stacks fighting it out in the middle of the desert.
The map was made long before the Saba were a faction in EB. In fact the opposite is actually true, one of the reasons Saba was chosen as a faction was to fill the gap down there in the map, which before just turned into a warzone between the AS and Ptolemaioi.
Not exactly correct. It was also chosen, apart from its importance in trade in that part of the world, as otherwise Arabia would rebel to Pahlava (which it did often), which created a purple menace on both sides of the AS. It wasn't pretty, and Saba plays a very important role providing a creator faction for that entire region.
Foot
Loverartis
09-03-2010, 13:38
I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.
In my opinion the creation of a faction in Nubia might be interesting; I don't know the historical events that happened there, but I read that in IIIrd BC Strabo report a Nobatae faction controlled the territory, after the Meroe Kingdom...
I find very curious the Axum Kingdom, in Ethiopia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksumite
Won't work with the limited culture slots
wasent there this Phonecian or carthagian guy who (barely) managed to get arround africa?
afterall I meant to emphasise that that whereas not beeing able to sail around Africa is not a big loss ingame not having a path around arabia would indeed be sad.
But whole army fleets? I think if you wanted to do that all the admirals would laugh you in the face. Especially as you wouldn't know exactly where you are afterwards and how long it'd take,...
I don't know if it had been done in the Ancient times but it was quite a risky challenge even in the 15th century. Actually I don't think the shiptypes would have been very good at it. Perhaps they could go south a lot, but at southernmost tip of Africa, I think these ships would be hopeless.
wasent there this Phonecian or carthagian guy who (barely) managed to get arround africa?
afterall I meant to emphasise that that whereas not beeing able to sail around Africa is not a big loss ingame not having a path around arabia would indeed be sad.
I imagine your are thinking of Hanno the Navigator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Navigator), no one knows exactly how far he went but we are certain he didn't make it all the way round, or even half way. The general consenus is that he reached either modern day Senegal or Cameroon before turning back.
but it's fun poping up in mesopotamia with all seleucid troops locked in asia minor :D
oh right, sorry the last time i've heard about him was in a "once apon a time" :D so a fairly long ago and b fairly unprofessional. it was just spooking around in my memory ;)
wasent there this Phonecian or carthagian guy who (barely) managed to get arround africa?
Hanno the Navigator tried. He came as far as Ghana or possibly even further south but then they feared it would get only hotter and hotter (until the seas would boil). Then this exiled Persian guy was forced to try it as well, but he had to turn back as well.
stratigos vasilios
09-04-2010, 16:55
Hanno the Navigator tried. He came as far as Ghana or possibly even further south but then they feared it would get only hotter and hotter (until the seas would boil). Then this exiled Persian guy was forced to try it as well, but he had to turn back as well.
Hax that is fascinating, is there much literature available on those travels? I would love to read it.
Hax that is fascinating, is there much literature available on those travels? I would love to read it.
There is quite an extensive description of his travels which include nice places to eat, sights to see and a comical incident involving Hanno and a barbary ape...
Hax that is fascinating, is there much literature available on those travels? I would love to read it.
I'll try to look up the Persian guy. There's loads of stuff on Hanno available on the internets though.
stratigos vasilios
09-05-2010, 03:07
There is quite an extensive description of his travels which include nice places to eat, sights to see and a comical incident involving Hanno and a barbary ape...
LOL. That would explain the Lonely Planet book he wrote on it...
LOL. That would explain Lonely Planet book he wrote on it...
lol
Dear devs!
Please announce list of ALL new ( brand new ones not presented in EB) factions. IMO it is time.
That would be some fresh air for us, EB fans worldwide.
Dear devs!
Please announce list of ALL new ( brand new ones not presented in EB) factions. IMO it is time.
That would be some fresh air for us, EB fans worldwide.
Do not tempt the gods mere mortal! Jokes aside what if the team are several years away from releasing EBII, then you have ruined your surprises.
Lysimachos
10-05-2010, 11:28
Dear devs!
Please announce list of ALL new ( brand new ones not presented in EB) factions. IMO it is time.
That would be some fresh air for us, EB fans worldwide.
I would not want that. It has been the policy of the EB team to give us elaborately compiled previews on certain subjects and certain factions and I find that much more appealing than just putting out "oh, fyi, these are the new factions".
Btw, I find it a little rude demanding a faction list like that (in upper case at that). The team members put a lot of work in this, without any reward than the gradually growing achievements and it's entirely their call when "it is time".
I would not want that. It has been the policy of the EB team to give us elaborately compiled previews on certain subjects and certain factions and I find that much more appealing than just putting out "oh, fyi, these are the new factions".
Btw, I find it a little rude demanding a faction list like that (in upper case at that). The team members put a lot of work in this, without any reward than the gradually growing achievements and it's entirely their call when "it is time".
If you find rude a statement with "please" and "dear devs" then...
It's been a long time since we have last announce of a new faction. And the most interesting thing for me are those brand new factions.
I demand nothing but ask.
Lysimachos
10-05-2010, 13:15
If you find rude a statement with "please" and "dear devs" then...
It's been a long time since we have last announce of a new faction. And the most interesting thing for me are those brand new factions.
I demand nothing but ask.
Yes, "please ALL". How about "another" or perhaps "some"? No, you had to go for "ALL". In upper case (so to make clear that less doesn't work for you, perhaps?). Looks like demanding to me, despite "Dear devs" and "please". But don't mind me, that's just my opinion.
Yes, "please ALL". How about "another" or perhaps "some"? No, you had to go for "ALL". In upper case (so to make clear that less doesn't work for you, perhaps?). Looks like demanding to me, despite "Dear devs" and "please". But don't mind me, that's just my opinion.
you know I just thought to myself:If I ask for ALL they will announce one or two. That was my strategy:)
Lysimachos
10-05-2010, 13:58
you know I just thought to myself:If I ask for ALL they will announce one or two. That was my strategy:)
Well, I guess that kind of makes sense. Sorry for bothering you.
Captain Trek
10-06-2010, 10:00
To be fair, it would certainly be good to see another faction announced fairly soon, simply because I like seeing how the EB map is being "filled in" by these new factions, with the sea of greyish eleutheroi provinces slowly being chipped away at, currently by Bosphorus, Boii, Pergamon and the Numidian faction whose name I can't spell, and soon to be by five or six additional ones, depending on whether the team keeps one faction slot in reserve for scripting, as they did in EB for a while (using it to better choreograph the actions of AS and its sattelite factions, who now just immediately break their alliances with the Selukids whenever you start a new game, at least on my copy of EB) before filling the empty slot in with Saba...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
10-06-2010, 13:37
The team seems very quiet. However, I'm sure the chill of autumn and winter will bring them back indoors onto their computers to work on EB for the next several months straight.:sweatdrop:
M to the A
10-07-2010, 05:14
I'm checking this website every day in case a new faction gets unveiled.. I remember before I went on vacation they said a couple of previews were close to being done :laugh4: Can't be long now, right? >> My kingdom for a new preview!
The team seems very quiet. However, I'm sure the chill of autumn and winter will bring them back indoors onto their computers to work on EB for the next several months straight.:sweatdrop:
thankfully none of them are geology students AFAIK :clown:
I also share the notion that a new preview must be coming soon. In pure speculation, I doubt it will be a new faction, though. Probably more detailed information on an already announced faction or some other aspect of the game. I'm personally anticipating info on the Bosporan Kingdom's unit roster.
Horatius Flaccus
10-14-2010, 20:14
Actually, an Arabia preview was already announced. So, I guess that will be the next preview.
Oh really? You mean like a new Arabian faction or like a "Peoples of Arabia" preview?
Andy1984
10-15-2010, 01:23
It's perfectly possible the team had a serious setback, perhaps by members responsible for some crucial information disappearing. I mean: previews were anounced two months ago, but clearly haven't been finished yet. If the team had this kind of setback, they might have to redo already 'finished' work which could explain the relative lack of twitter-updates as well.
Another possibility is that certain extremely valuable information has just been found or that game-making ideas were developped. I somehow guess the former, as the latter would translate herself into twitter-updates.
kind regards,
Andy
Horatius Flaccus
10-15-2010, 18:15
Oh really? You mean like a new Arabian faction or like a "Peoples of Arabia" preview?
I think it's probably a "Peoples of Arabia" preview. Don't know for sure though. Here's the tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/EBTeam/status/21182859344
stratigos vasilios
10-21-2010, 04:22
Were the Thyssagetae around in the EB period? I know they are probably not in the game, just curious.
kidpacific
11-07-2010, 08:52
Personally speaking,i would prefer the YueZhi and the nubians.
For Yuezhi built the Kushan Empire; and the nubians built the Axum Empire.
The Yeuzhi were in older versions of EB but were removed because it was found that they did not appear on our map until 100 years after the start date, they still appear as a scripted invasion of rebel armies at the north eastern edge of the map in 172bc.
Kush was the Nubian Kingdom not Axum, either way, due to the hardcoded culture limits of the game, they won't be a faction.
Were the Thyssagetae around in the EB period? I know they are probably not in the game, just curious.
Very hard to say, they get a mention in Herodotus, I don't know how long the Scythians persisted in that region for.
Tellos Athenaios
11-07-2010, 20:28
@bobbin: I think kidpacific meant the Kushan Empire centered around the Hindu Kush during the first few centuries AD; not the Kingdom of Kush (the Nubians).
anubis88
11-07-2010, 21:32
I think bobbin was replying to the fact that kidpacific said the Nubians build the Axum Empire - he replied that the Nubian kingdom was Kush, not Axum.
I know there is absolutely no chance of it due to the lack of historical data for this period but I would love to see a Scandinavian faction.
stratigos vasilios
11-12-2010, 15:38
Ditto for a Baltic faction, they would be really fun to play though.
Ditto for a Baltic faction, they would be really fun to play though.
You been listening to too much Black Metal too I take it? lol.
stratigos vasilios
11-13-2010, 02:13
Hehe you know it man!
Gaivs Jvlivs Caesar
11-13-2010, 16:21
I know there is absolutely no chance of it due to the lack of historical data for this period but I would love to see a Scandinavian faction.
Yes... I'm absolutely sure that an eventual federation of Scandinavian tribes would balance a bit the hegemony of the germans to the north.In EB the Sweboz too quickly conquer the entire area even outlasting the gauls.Playing the Romani my first job was to make the Sweboz my alies and expand fast beyond the Alps before the germans get there.Otherwise I'll be under constant threat from them.Non theless they betrayed me later but I've already established strong foothold from Vindobona to Veldideno include taking the strategic rivercrossings with forts and legions along the frontier.The other hole in the map is the north-eastern part of Europe.I don't think that historically the Sarmatians were the only faction wich rule over the sector.It would be nice if a Baltic federation of tribes appear there as faction to make some troubles to the germans from the east...Between Carthage and Egypt some new faction must arise... also... At this point these are my suggestions.:cool:
seienchin
11-14-2010, 01:13
I would rather expect another german tribe to the north.
But anyway, we dont know anything about britain in 272b.c. so maybe there will be a skandinavian faction that is based on facts as much as the casse^^.
I would still expect another german faction though.
But anyway, we dont know anything about britain in 272b.c.
Not quite, we know alot about Britain in 272BC just not the political and historical situation.
I had a dream last night that the EBII team announced an expansion in the number of Belgic provinces to allow for the Atrebates/Ambiani, Suessiones, Nervii and Eburones to each have a region.
retaining the current province destribution a scandinavian faction would be rather inaccurate iirc and they would not really nerf the sweboz in the way we'd like to have it. they'd either kill them off few turns into the game(about as soon as KH gets thrown of hellas) or get killed by the sweboz at about the same time :( imho a second germanic or celto-germanic faction would be more effective in inpeding sweboz expansion westwards. tho a one province faction that borders the Sweboz would give the game sort of a random chance of one of them dissapearing withing the first two years and would be surely gone if the player controlls one of them :(
I think ideally to prevent the Sweboz swamping Gaul you would need a faction in Northern Gaul to act as a buffer. If you could find a suitable faction to place in Flanders or Upper Normandy that would have sufficient breathing room around it to allow it expand without having to face the Sweboz right from the start.
Like a Belgic faction?
Possibly...........But then again I don't have particularly strong views on there being a Belgic faction.
(Up the Belgae!!!)
But the Belgae did not yet settle in this region...
But the Belgae did not yet settle in this region...
Says who? (I don't mean to be rude I am curious)
stratigos vasilios
11-21-2010, 03:05
Does Gerrha have any chance? I know its most likely a no, but maybe we should start trying to guess more Eastern factions?
Not likely, we don't even know the exact position of Gerrha.
Not likely, we don't even know the exact position of Gerrha.
Even if we knew more about Gerrha, which we really don't know much about, it didn't have that much political influence or power I think. Outside of the walls, most of the province is wasteland and 'ruled' by hardy nomads, small in numbers. Though there probably were some important trade routes.
They were great traders but that's it.
Not likely, we don't even know the exact position of Gerrha.
growing up, I was told it was where the Qatar peninsula meets the main Arabian peninsula; exact enough for me :clown:
(it is called Jarjaa' or aj-jarjaa' in Arabic)
Its actually called Han Hagar now, as Gerrha was the greek name for it.
(Sorry to appear rude but) who says the Belgae were not already present in the region they had settled by the time of Caesar? From my reading isolating the Belgae in 58BC is difficult enough. Please don't tell me the team has dismissed the Belgae on account of a few lines from Caesars "Gallic War".
Not at all. Not all new faction slots are accounted for, you can see that from the previews, and we keep an open mind about all things. That being said, the Belgae aren't looking good due to our discoveries about their history before the Gallic wars. This is not based on accounts from the Gallic Wars, but rather from studies of material culture and when, where, and how advanced the shift to a Belgic culture was. No faction possibility is dead until otherwise stated so, there are a myriad of factors to consider in the selection of factions, and we will let you know of our decision on the Belgae sometime in the future. For now the team is focused on finding and filling important gaps to make sure the mod as a whole is up to par.
I don't know how different the "proto-belgae" (I'm using this term as I don't know what's the appropriate one) culturally speaking, but at the start date of EB they should had been somewhere around the black forest or near the Rhine's eastern shore...
If they were pretty similar, it would be nice to have them as a migrating faction, and they would become more belgae like with the eras reforms...
stratigos vasilios
11-29-2010, 12:16
Its actually called Han Hagar now, as Gerrha was the greek name for it.
So on the EBII campain map it'll appear as Han Hagar?
...or do you mean it's called Han Hagar in moden day language.
The first one. It means 'the City' and is the supposed original name for the city.
stratigos vasilios
11-29-2010, 14:46
Ah cool cool :thumbsup:
I'm just wondering if the Eleutheroi History section on the EB website is any indication of confirmed factions? So far the Numidians and Pergamon have been confirmed and both of those factions are present on the website.
stratigos vasilios
12-05-2010, 04:56
Maeotae, Venedae and Mazun peoples?
Bah, at this stage I'm just guessing absolutely anything!
...who knows, naming factions without any supportive research *could* work...
I'm just wondering if the Eleutheroi History section on the EB website is any indication of confirmed factions? So far the Numidians and Pergamon have been confirmed and both of those factions are present on the website.
If I am not mistaken that text dates back to the 0.7 release; so if it announces candidate factions you would expect to see the Saka and the Saba as well. I also doubt the EB team would have forgotten to add the Boii, and included the Scythians instead of the Spartocid kingdom.
Leão magno
12-05-2010, 15:27
Between Carthage and Egypt some new faction must arise... also... At this point these are my suggestions.:cool:
This would be Cyrene, but I believe it was already vetoed
QuintusSertorius
12-05-2010, 20:32
How accurate is this list from the TWC Wiki (http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Europa_Barbarorum_II)?
Aedui
Arche Seleukeia
Arverni
As’ Sab’yn wal’Jau
Baktria
Boii
Bosphoran Kingdom
Epeiros
Getai
Hayasdan
Koinon Hellenon
Lusotannan
Makedonia
Mamla'ha biMassylim
Pahlava
Pergamon
Pontos
Pritanoi (switch for Casse)
Ptolemaioi
Safot Softim biQarthadast
Saka Rauka
Sauromatae
Senatus Populusque Romanus
Swêboz
24 of 31 slots.
Iron Fist
12-05-2010, 21:55
Accurate it would seem. As far as I know, all the factions that were in EB 1 are in EB 2. The green ones are the factions that are new factions in EB 2.
Leão magno
12-06-2010, 17:05
For me it is accurate... for my pleasure, however, I would add a second Numidian faction, Celtiberian, a northeastern Iberian faction wich I could not remember the name, and Syracuse, this would add to the game in the western mediterranean portion of the map giving Africa, Iberia, Sicily, Italy, and even Gaul the same treatment the EB team gave to the successors states.
stratigos vasilios
12-07-2010, 03:33
Up the Belgae!
Hahaha! Your a commited man Brennus :thumbsup:
I'm going to jump on your Belgae train, up the Belgae!
Even Caesar wanted the Belgae: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..."
With the Eremos getting bigger, bring more settlements in Belgica ^^
Even Caesar wanted the Belgae: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..."
He hasn't even played EB1, so he doesn't count.
Seriously, Caesar's phrase describes cultural rather than political divisions in Gaul: the Belgae, the Aquitanii and the Galli (Gauls). The last group includes arch-rivals the Aedui and the Sequani (who took over from the Averni). I also don't see anyone arguing for a Aquitanii faction on the basis of this line.
I also don't see anyone arguing for a Aquitanii faction on the basis of this line.
My thoughts exactly.
How accurate is this list from the TWC Wiki (http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Europa_Barbarorum_II)?
Aedui
Arche Seleukeia
Arverni
As’ Sab’yn wal’Jau
Baktria
Boii
Bosphoran Kingdom
Epeiros
Getai
Hayasdan
Koinon Hellenon
Lusotannan
Makedonia
Mamla'ha biMassylim
Pahlava
Pergamon
Pontos
Pritanoi (switch for Casse)
Ptolemaioi
Safot Softim biQarthadast
Saka Rauka
Sauromatae
Senatus Populusque Romanus
Swêboz
24 of 31 slots.
I would add
1. Belgae
2. Syracuse
3. Iberian faction
4. German faction
5. Kartli (Caucasian Iberia)
6. Bithynia
7. Reserved for scripting?
I think a Celtiberian faction is pretty much a given. Aside from that I think the Belgae would be a good candidate for a faction in terms of gameplay and uniqueness. They're (unless I am mistaken) a sort of Celto-Germanic faction in an interesting place, with the options of going east into Germania, south into Gaul and west into Britain. The kingdom of Bithynia would also be a good candidate for a faction, I think.
Another Germanic faction is, I think, unlikely, due to lack of contemporary evidence and the fact that even the Sweboz only barely meet faction guidelines. Syracuse I think was quite happy controlling only the immediate area without any real ambitions to expand (under Hiero at least, though from Livius I gather that his grandson would have liked to control the whole of Sicily).
I think other good faction candidates would be Atropatene (can't really find any information on it to be honest, but wikipedia seems to think it was independent in 272 BCE) and Massaesylia (sure, it might get a bit crowed in this corner of the map, but other than that, it seems like a perfectly legitimate faction to me...).
He hasn't even played EB1, so he doesn't count.
Seriously, Caesar's phrase describes cultural rather than political divisions in Gaul: the Belgae, the Aquitanii and the Galli (Gauls). The last group includes arch-rivals the Aedui and the Sequani (who took over from the Averni). I also don't see anyone arguing for a Aquitanii faction on the basis of this line.
As you said it describes cultural divisions, to me that's an even bigger reason to add the Belgae...
Of course I would love an aquitanian tribe, but the slots aren't infinite...
Aside from that I think the Belgae would be a good candidate for a faction in terms of gameplay and uniqueness. They're (unless I am mistaken) a sort of Celto-Germanic faction in an interesting place, with the options of going east into Germania, south into Gaul and west into Britain.
The "Germanic" origin of the Belgae, as described by Caesar and Tacitus, is likely a reference to the Belgae originating east of the Rhine and thus being "from Germany" rather than "German". As far as I know the Belgae were La Tene in culture and Celtic in language. The reference of a Germanic origin for the Belgae is most likely a geographical rather than ethnic note, in the same way the Aquitanii were Iberians but lived within the borders of Celtic Gaul. Your absolutley correct though in saying that the Belgae could expand into Gaul, Germany or Britain. All these possibilities are supported by the historical record (Germanic origin recorded by Caesar and Tacitus, Diviciacus of the Suessiones ruled over parts of Gaul and Britain, the Belgic invasions as recorded by Caesar) and thanks to the recent work of a young and upcoming archaeologist at Edinburgh University the Belgic presence in Britain can be demonstrated (they were in Hampshire).
Leão magno
12-16-2010, 22:05
... Syracuse I think was quite happy controlling only the immediate area without any real ambitions to expand (under Hiero at least, though from Livius I gather that his grandson would have liked to control the whole of Sicily)....
About Syracuse, belive me, with Pyros, Carthage, Rome, Other greeks and so on Syracuse had no time to think a lot about expanding outside Sicily, but even then they tried to get a hold in other islands and in Italy itself, they just did not have the real chance, but perhaps, with a human player EB's Syracuse luck can be very different! (srry for the misspelling)
Populus Romanus
01-14-2011, 07:05
I think that the Arevaci will be in.
The Arevaci were the main tribe of the Celtiberians, and had lots of polical influence in the affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. When the Celtiberian War began, the other Celtiberian tribes (Titti, Belli, Lusones, etc.) were willing to rally around them to head the war against Rome. This the Arevaci did very well, as Polybius illustrates well:
"The war between the Romans and the Celtiberians was called the 'fiery war,' so remarkable was the uninterrupted character of the engagements....The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness, the combatants refusing either to let their courage flag or to yield to bodily fatigue, and ever rallying, recovering confidence and beginning afresh. Winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one."
Polybius, The Histories (XXXV.1)
Indeed, when Scipio Aemilianus besieged Numantia, the Arevaci capitol, He refused to give battle to the enemy, though they offered battle many times out of desparation from starvation, because he recognized that he would lose. In the end, it was not a crushing military defeat that felled the Arevaci, but starvation. The Arevaci fulfill the Europa Barbarorum Team's requirements for a faction: That they were politically relevant and important, they were militarily formidable and expansionistic, and there is ample historical record to consruct a faction for them. Furthermore, the Iberian Peninsula is begging for another faction. Having the Lusotana conquer all of the peninsula in a breeze is not very realistic, after all, they never expanded due to hostile neighbors. Having the Arevaci would help to slow down the Lusotana. Also, the Arevaci's expansionistic tendancies were counteracted by hostile neighbors, just like the Lusotana. Having both would make the portrayal of each more realistic.
Welcome to the .Org, and to EB, SPQRules! ~:wave: .
I'd say the Arevacci are a safe bet: there's already a respawning army there in EB1 and the provinces in Iberia are going to be remapped.
fightermedic
01-14-2011, 17:08
yea they're the most likely faction guess of all that are
Lucio Domicio Aureliano
01-14-2011, 22:24
I, too, agree the Arevaci will be in; i think the belgae will be in as well.
Anyway, knowing the extraordinary high standards of the Eb team, we can rest asure that they best factions will be in.
Populus Romanus
01-15-2011, 00:17
Thank you, Ludens!
I think it almost assured that there will be some faction in Iberia. The Arevaci are the best bet.
Populus Romanus
01-17-2011, 19:12
How about Khwarezm?:juggle2:
moonburn
01-18-2011, 05:00
their geographic position was uncertain at this time
many have defended them so far but it seems it would be as dificult and conjunctural (or even worse depending on the archeological work and finds) as the pritanoi (also the dates mighty be tricky)
Populus Romanus
01-18-2011, 05:09
As for their geographic position, I believe it is just south of the Aral Sea, where Khwarezm has always been.
their geographic position was uncertain at this time
many have defended them so far but it seems it would be as dificult and conjunctural (or even worse depending on the archeological work and finds) as the pritanoi (also the dates mighty be tricky)
There is actually a lot of material available on them, sadly it is all in Russian and only found old Soviet archeological reports, from what I've heard they were a highly organised, centralised state and quite powerful in the region.
There is actually a lot of material available on them, sadly it is all in Russian and only found old Soviet archeological reports, from what I've heard they were a highly organised, centralised state and quite powerful in the region.
Are we talking about the Khwarezm or the Soviet Union?
Are we talking about the Khwarezm or the Soviet Union?
It certainly ain't Belgium...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
01-18-2011, 17:12
How would that reconcile with the fact that Pahlav own the Khwarezm region at the game's start? Is this inaccurate?
I do realize they were not independent technically from the Seleucids at this point but would they have any sort of influence over that region?
QuintusSertorius
01-18-2011, 17:39
How does M2:TW handle lots of factions packed into a small area? I ask because Asia Minor is going to be awash with factions, Makedones, Seleukids, Ptolemies, Pontos, Pergamon and possibly Galatia as well. Five or even six in hotly-contested region could be messy indeed.
How would that reconcile with the fact that Pahlav own the Khwarezm region at the game's start? Is this inaccurate?
I do realize they were not independent technically from the Seleucids at this point but would they have any sort of influence over that region?
Nope, it's accurate. Parthia was a Seleukid satrapy that declared independence. During the dynastic crisis during the reign of Seleukos II, what would become the Parthians we know and love (i.e. those wacky horse archers) conquered the province of Parthia.
How does M2:TW handle lots of factions packed into a small area? I ask because Asia Minor is going to be awash with factions, Makedones, Seleukids, Ptolemies, Pontos, Pergamon and possibly Galatia as well. Five or even six in hotly-contested region could be messy indeed.
I personally have no idea. But it should be a lot of fun to find out!
It certainly ain't Belgium...
lol!
Populus Romanus
01-19-2011, 23:04
According to Wikipedia (Yes, Wikipedia. Kill me.), Khwarezm was largely independant from the Seleucids. Unfortunately, that is all Wikipedia said at all and gave no dates or anything more specific:wall:. They also said Khwarezm was the most powerful Kingdom in the Aral Sea area during the time of Alexander, although that is 50 years before Europa Barbarorum's timeframe:wall:.
I was wondering, in a very uneducated way as I'm sure I'm speaking too generally for this forum, what about the Libyans?
It may well have been asked before (even by me with my memory) but they were allies of the Carthies and must of had a bit of clout until Scipio burnt them IIRC. Could they turn up in some form or is that a no no?
Horatius Flaccus
01-25-2011, 01:23
What do you mean with Libyans? AFAIK Libyans was the term Greeks used to describe North Africans west of Egypt.
It may well have been asked before (even by me with my memory) but they were allies of the Carthies and must of had a bit of clout until Scipio burnt them IIRC. Could they turn up in some form or is that a no no?
In some form? Yes: several Libyan units have been already previewed (1 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?131488-Preview-The-Qarthadastim), 2 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?119349-Preview-The-People-of-North-Africa)). In the form of a faction? I doubt it. As Horatius mentions, the Libyans do not represent a single group: it's a broad ethnic label given to them by others. That said, there was one "Libyan" kingdom still around by the time of EB, if I am not mistaken. It had to be fairly powerful and expansionistic to qualify as a faction, though.
OvidiusNasso
01-26-2011, 07:03
I am wondering about
Helvetii
Numantines
Odrysian Kingdom (to give Getae competition)
I also wonder about the Britons faction, with the number of British cities is anyone else worried it might prove to be just like the Britons in Rome Total War? The Britons managed to steamroll the Gauls with fewer cities.
I also wonder about the Britons faction, with the number of British cities is anyone else worried it might prove to be just like the Britons in Rome Total War? The Britons managed to steamroll the Gauls with fewer cities.
I was dissapointed to see the Casse replaced by the Pritanoi and likewise the announcement that the Pritanoi would be the only British faction (actually really annoyed by the fact Ireland has been decreased to a single province centred on Tara, UP NAVAN!) however I have since reconcilled myself with the fact that there really is no other possible British faction to compete against the Casse/Pritanoi. The main rivals of the Casse, the Atrebates, did not arrive to 100BC at the earliest, even with historical information and numismatic evidence we cannot seperate the Trinovantes history from the Casse and to set them up as rivals would be foolish as they are in such close proximity. Elsewhere in Britain there are no suitable candidates for a faction, the Brigantes and Caledones were both confederacies and quite possibly only emerged as result of the Roman threat in the 1st century, whilst other tribes such as the Iceni, Durotriges and Dumnonii in the midlands were not expansionist and instead appear to have been primarily traders.
With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?
QuintusSertorius
01-26-2011, 14:11
Is a steamroller from the British isles even a risk? Is the M2:TW better on naval invasions than RTW/BI was? Better meaning it actually launches them, and they're more than 3-5 units that are easily defeated.
vollorix
01-26-2011, 15:20
With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?
I´ll gladly take one :)
I do not like "landbridges" actually, but one could make one between England and Continental Europe to spice things up. I actually liked Belgians in EB1, their warlike FMs, and their superb troops! It might come as a suprise, but i think there is going to be an "Alpine Faction", instead of those "elite Rebell stacks". With decent units and sofisticated diplomatic settings for that faction, they, along with the Belgians, might be exactly what Europe might need to get "fully populated". With the Arevaci in Spain, all those factions should give a tought time to Romans, or whoever wishes to establish a large pan European empire. I always find it more difficult to fight several small ( but well situated, financially ) factions, then have one oponent, and so should the AI, because even with one settlement those factions are able to replenish their losses, regroup, grab a settlement or two, and come back in couple of years, to take a revange.
The only thing i hope is that Carthaginians will finaly compete for Sicily, really nice Punic Wars, instead of their stacks roaming around African deserts to capture worthless Eleutheroi villages. Wars between Carthage and Ptolemaioi in the Lybian desert are very irrealistic, and annoying too, imho.
I also hope, that the team will pay more attention on "autoresolving", since that´s the way AI armies fight against each other. The super heavy armour, or phalangitai are simply overwhelming for the poor barbarians in long terms. Maybe some tweaks are possible to make units stronger ( EDU i.e ) on particular terrain to give them a needed advantage, or to amplify the "rationing" effect on generals, reducing their command stars by half, and/or some other tweaks ( i´ve got no idea about MTW2 engine at all ).
OvidiusNasso
01-26-2011, 23:11
I was dissapointed to see the Casse replaced by the Pritanoi and likewise the announcement that the Pritanoi would be the only British faction (actually really annoyed by the fact Ireland has been decreased to a single province centred on Tara, UP NAVAN!) however I have since reconcilled myself with the fact that there really is no other possible British faction to compete against the Casse/Pritanoi. The main rivals of the Casse, the Atrebates, did not arrive to 100BC at the earliest, even with historical information and numismatic evidence we cannot seperate the Trinovantes history from the Casse and to set them up as rivals would be foolish as they are in such close proximity. Elsewhere in Britain there are no suitable candidates for a faction, the Brigantes and Caledones were both confederacies and quite possibly only emerged as result of the Roman threat in the 1st century, whilst other tribes such as the Iceni, Durotriges and Dumnonii in the midlands were not expansionist and instead appear to have been primarily traders.
With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?
Unfortunately you are correct, and I will probably go either Gauls, Romans, or Greeks on my first campaign.
I´ll gladly take one :)
I do not like "landbridges" actually, but one could make one between England and Continental Europe to spice things up. I actually liked Belgians in EB1, their warlike FMs, and their superb troops! It might come as a suprise, but i think there is going to be an "Alpine Faction", instead of those "elite Rebell stacks". With decent units and sofisticated diplomatic settings for that faction, they, along with the Belgians, might be exactly what Europe might need to get "fully populated". With the Arevaci in Spain, all those factions should give a tought time to Romans, or whoever wishes to establish a large pan European empire. I always find it more difficult to fight several small ( but well situated, financially ) factions, then have one oponent, and so should the AI, because even with one settlement those factions are able to replenish their losses, regroup, grab a settlement or two, and come back in couple of years, to take a revange.
The only thing i hope is that Carthaginians will finaly compete for Sicily, really nice Punic Wars, instead of their stacks roaming around African deserts to capture worthless Eleutheroi villages. Wars between Carthage and Ptolemaioi in the Lybian desert are very irrealistic, and annoying too, imho.
I also hope, that the team will pay more attention on "autoresolving", since that´s the way AI armies fight against each other. The super heavy armour, or phalangitai are simply overwhelming for the poor barbarians in long terms. Maybe some tweaks are possible to make units stronger ( EDU i.e ) on particular terrain to give them a needed advantage, or to amplify the "rationing" effect on generals, reducing their command stars by half, and/or some other tweaks ( i´ve got no idea about MTW2 engine at all ).
If only they removed the option of going South, the anti-Barcids lost and playing those isn't fun because it feels more like hunting then warfare. But on Britons steamrolling Gaul and often Germany it is a serious possibility it did afterall happen in Rome Total War when British Isles had less.
Populus Romanus
01-29-2011, 02:05
The Pritanoi will only have one province to start, not all of Prittania.
stratigos vasilios
01-29-2011, 02:26
From the fan based map progression thread:
the starting province of the Pritanoi, its the landlocked province in Southern England (Penncrugon).
Populus Romanus
02-07-2011, 05:11
http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_2/gorbea_lorrio_6_2.html
I found this very interesting link to an article about the Celtiberian methods of warfare. From the article:
From the fifth century's end to the end of the third century BC, at the end of the Middle Celtiberian phase, the dominance of the Upper Tagus and Jalon valleys shifted to the lands of the Upper Douro (Lorrio 1997: 315-316). Evidence for this change is seen in the rise of the Arevaci, the most powerful Celtiberian populus in the fight against Rome. The cemeteries of the right bank of the Upper Douro (Soria) that belonged to them contained numerous warrior tombs that reflect their importance in Arevaci society and its military character. The tombs in these cemeteries do not have the helmets, pectorals or the large embossed bronze umbos of the Aguilar de Anguita or Alpanseque type burials (Lorrio 1997: 173-182).
During the Middle Celtiberian period (ca. 450-225/200 BC), the Celtiberians secured and stabilized the areas settled in the Early period, and began to occupy new lands such as the right bank of the Middle Ebro Valley (Capalvo 2001). The settlements grew in size (some of them between two and five hectares) and number, and the number of cemeteries increased (Fig. 18). All of this indicates sustained demographic growth and systematic occupation of territory.
The first of the areas mentioned above corresponds to the inland regions of the Iberian Peninsula, where the Celtiberians would have been located (Fig. 3).5 This group was expressly considered by several authors to be Celtic (Posidonius, in Diodorus 5, 33; Strabo 3, 4, 5; Martial Epigr. I, 55, 8-10 and X, 63, 3-4; Isidorus Ethym. 9, 2, 114). From the late third century BC onwards, Graeco-Roman literary sources began to provide the earliest information on the Celtiberians and Celtiberia, and gave accounts of the names of Celtiberian peoples and their location. There is no single unanimous opinion regarding the links between peoples that could be considered Celtiberians, which include the Arevaci, Pelendones, Lusones, Belli and Titti, and occasionally Vaccaei, Carpetani, Olcades, Lobetani, and even more distant groups such as Oretani, Bastetani, Bastuli or Celtici. There is similarly no shortage of authors who reject the ethnic content of the term altogether, and take it to refer to all inhabitants of an extensive area of the inland Peninsula.
The first reference to Celtiberia is made within the context of the Second Punic War, in Polybius' narration of the siege of Saguntum (3, 17, 2) in the spring of 219 BC. From this date onwards, information about Celtiberians and Celtiberia is plentiful and varied, since the Celtiberians were one of the key players in the various wars and battles that took place throughout the second and first century BC, which culminated in the destruction of Numantia in 133 BC. Celtiberia also played a vital role in the Sertonian Wars (Salinas 1996: 27-37).
According to Strabo (3, 4, 13), Celtiberia was divided into four territories, of which he only made reference to those inhabited by the Arevaci and Lusones, although Polybius (35, 2) and Appian (Iber. 44, 48-49, 50, 61-63 and 66) revealed that the other two corresponded to the Belos and Belli and Titthi tribes. A little further on, Strabo (3, 4, 19) indicated that some believed that there were five areas. Several candidates were proposed as inhabiting this fifth zone, including the Vaccaei, who were considered Celtiberians by Appian (Iber. 50-52, 53-54) although in general they appeared in sources as two separate peoples. In all probability, this fifth section was inhabited by the Pelendones, whom Pliny (3, 26) described as Celtiberians.
The Celtiberians could be considered an ethnic group insofar as they included subordinate ethnic units, just as the Gauls or the Iberians did, but on a smaller scale, without evidence for centralized power or even a political hierarchy (Burillo 1993: 226).
When the Celtiberian War began, the other Celtiberian tribes (Titti, Belli, Lusones, etc.) were willing to rally around them to head the war against Rome. This the Arevaci did very well, as Polybius illustrates well:
"The war between the Romans and the Celtiberians was called the 'fiery war,' so remarkable was the uninterrupted character of the engagements....The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness, the combatants refusing either to let their courage flag or to yield to bodily fatigue, and ever rallying, recovering confidence and beginning afresh. Winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one."
Polybius, The Histories (XXXV.1)
Indeed, when Scipio Aemilianus besieged Numantia, the Arevaci capitol, He refused to give battle to the enemy, though they offered battle many times out of desparation from starvation, because he recognized that he would lose. In the end, it was not a crushing military defeat that felled the Arevaci, but starvation.
The Arevaci were the main tribe of the Celtiberians, and had lots of polical influence in the affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. During the Middle Celtiberian Period, which ended in ~220 BC, the Celtiberians were expanding into the territory of their neighbors, and consolidating these conquests. The Arevaci would certainly also take part in this expansion wave. That establishes that they were a conquest oriented people during Europa Barbarorum II's timeframe. As for their importance to other factions, the Celtiberians a s a whole were definently as powerful as the Lusotanan, perhaps even more. Furthermore, the Iberian Peninsula is begging for another faction. Having the Lusotana conquer all of the peninsula in a breeze is not very realistic, after all, they never expanded due to hostile neighbors. Having the Arevaci would help to slow down the Lusotana. Also, the Arevaci's expansionistic tendancies were counteracted by hostile neighbors, just like the Lusotana. Having both would make the portrayal of each more realistic.As the principle tribe of the Celtiberians, they certainly warrant a faction. Also, there is an ample historical record to construct the Arevaci faction.
eddy_purpus
02-25-2011, 09:07
Did Pritanoi ever touch Europe´s soil in any attempt to gain land in the EB time frame?
Yes, in fact they were in constant contact with it (unless they jumped).
LOL, I assume by "Europe" he meant the mainland. Great response, though.
Populus Romanus
02-25-2011, 17:25
lol. But assuming he meant the mainland, then no, I don't think they ever did. I believe that they were too busy killing one another in Britain to be bothered about the mainland.
eddy_purpus
02-25-2011, 19:57
Yes, in fact they were in constant contact with it (unless they jumped).
Was it ahistorical the starting province that CA gave them in France in Rome vanilla ,then?
Im just saying because I sometimes get annoyed at the fact that ´Pritanoi´ will never carry troops into France to conquer land when Im not playing as them...
I hate seeing them just start in Britannia and sit there for the rest of the campaign...
And also...
I would love ... if the EB team decided to make an ´invisible bridge´just like constantinople´s city in between France and Britannia...
It would help the issue of Island Factions to not have to carry troops into another place using boats...Because they never do it that way...Just as Pritanoi...
Populus Romanus
02-25-2011, 21:59
I think that would be a good idea, it would help spice things up in Prittania.
eddy_purpus
02-25-2011, 22:35
What...
The invisible bridge...Or the Province that CA game them in vanilla?
If they indeed, decided to add an invisible bridge through there...
It should take at least 2 turns to cross it...
That... Id suggest.. lol
Paltmull
02-25-2011, 22:50
Well, the problem in EB is that the AI very rarely uses ships. If this changes with EBII we might very well see Pritanoi invasions of the mainland.
Horatius Flaccus
02-25-2011, 23:29
Eddy, Bobbin made a joke. Brittain is also Europe.
And the MedII naval AI is much, much better then in RTW. Even in vanilla Scotland will expand in Europe (particulary Belgium) if it's at peace with England.
eddy_purpus
02-25-2011, 23:36
Well, the problem in EB is that the AI very rarely uses ships. If this changes with EBII we might very well see Pritanoi invasions of the mainland.
That´s what I´d like to see... :)
Eddy, Bobbin made a joke. Brittain is also Europe.
And the MedII naval AI is much, much better then in RTW. Even in vanilla Scotland will expand in Europe (particulary Belgium) if it's at peace with England.
Lol...
I hope the naval AI is better in EB2..
I would´nt like to watch a faction just sittin´in an island doing nothing :P
Was it ahistorical the starting province that CA gave them in France in Rome vanilla ,then?
For the most part, I guess they were basing it loosely on the Atrebates, a Belgic tribe, who we supposed to have held territory on both sides of the channel. It's certainly incorrect for 270BC though.
Im just saying because I sometimes get annoyed at the fact that ´Pritanoi´ will never carry troops into France to conquer land when Im not playing as them...
I hate seeing them just start in Britannia and sit there for the rest of the campaign...
And also...
I would love ... if the EB team decided to make an ´invisible bridge´just like constantinople´s city in between France and Britannia...
It would help the issue of Island Factions to not have to carry troops into another place using boats...Because they never do it that way...Just as Pritanoi...
The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.
Drunk Clown
02-27-2011, 15:13
The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.
I adjusted it to prevent misinterpreting :laugh4:
Thank you, amended my post too.:2thumbsup:
eddy_purpus
02-27-2011, 20:59
For the most part, I guess they were basing it loosely on the Atrebates, a Belgic tribe, who we supposed to have held territory on both sides of the channel. It's certainly incorrect for 270BC though.
The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.So it is likely that we will see naval invasions from the Pritanoi on France or other parts of Europe :D?
WinsingtonIII
02-27-2011, 22:00
So it is likely that we will see naval invasions from the Pritanoi on France or other parts of Europe :D?
I suppose we can't know until we play, but I have seen naval invasions in a few M2TW mods. Most notably, I see lots of naval invasions (like persistant repeated attempts against you from the same faction instead of just occasional attempts throughout the game) in Thera: Legacy of the Great Torment, however that may be in part because unit costs and upkeep are very low in that mod. There is always the worry that the extreme expense of ships in EB2 (assuming they are as expensive as in EB1) may discourage the AI from building a navy and launching naval invasions. But hopefully the money scripts for the AI will offset that.
Still, there is certainly evidence that the M2 AI is capable of repeated naval invasions.
QuintusSertorius
02-27-2011, 23:10
Given how atrocious the naval AI in BI was, expensive ships preventing spamming of fleets is not a bad thing.
vollorix
02-28-2011, 20:34
I was playing several different campaigns last time and there is one thing i must say: The AI can in fact do really good naval invasions! Rhodes was the island where everyone seemed to want to invade, and i have seen Macedonians, Epirotes, Ptoleys and Seleucids landing their troops, partly full stacks, there and sieging the city. The AI also knows very well about the advantages of Rhodes military docks, and unless they are of the same culture, they do not bother with building up barracks or even auxillaries, but instead went strait for the shipwrights, cranking out powerfull ships within shortes possible time. Those pathetic landings happen only if the AI is assuming there is only a small garrison on the island, or is mislead by an ambushing party, but if a factions wants Rhodes, and that seemed to be quite a priority for the factions i listed above, they used to get it, sooner or later, mostly after the first attempt with a decent stack. I wouldn´t call BI.exe inept in performing of naval invasions, the point is, it´s still AI and no human, who can concentrate his whole power on one single battle/front, while heroically defending the rest of the empire with couple of slingers and FM ;)
GenosseGeneral
02-28-2011, 22:19
I do agree on this point; i got certain screenshots with which I documented what I called my "the carthie's D-DAY": A massive fleet operation to support hard pressed Italian holdings with 2-3 fullstacks with troops from the whole carthaginan empire (including spain and the baleares). I had not the timne to upload them yet, but they prove, that the BI.exe AI is capable of "planning" a sea invasion besides from sending 2-3 units to sicily.
Populus Romanus
03-04-2011, 05:12
Nabatu.
Discuss.
Tyrfingr
03-04-2011, 11:29
Nabatu.
Discuss.
Fail. The Nabataean Kingdom did not emerge as a clear, independent kingdom until the mid-2nd century BC when the ptolies and seleukids were in decline and could not claim soverign over the area.
XSamatan
03-04-2011, 13:38
Nabatu.
Discuss.
Your post doesn't met the minimum that is expected on this forum, this is not 4chan.
If you want to discuss about a potential faction search for proof, read the sources and present it while using at least minimalistic academic standards.
XSamatan
Populus Romanus
03-05-2011, 01:20
Your post doesn't met the minimum that is expected on this forum, this is not 4chan.
If you want to discuss about a potential faction search for proof, read the sources and present it while using at least minimalistic academic standards.
XSamatan
Actually, the minimum allowed on this forum is 3 characters. Otherwise it would not have even let me post.
The problem with the Nabataeans is that there is very little history available about them around 272 BC. However, I figured that since people on TWC were very receptive to the idea of the Nabatu as a faction, that people here would be as well, and that a few gems of information may crop up that could be used to formulate a case.
Fail. The Nabataean Kingdom did not emerge as a clear, independent kingdom until the mid-2nd century BC when the ptolies and seleukids were in decline and could not claim soverign over the area.Fail yourself. The Nabataeans were an organized tribe in 272 BC, indeed they were so at the extreme minimum at least almost 50 before then, almost certainly far longer, maybe even centuries old. Maybe you should have done some research, if one looks even the most effortless search would show that in 311 BC a Diadochi army was thrown back from Petra by enemies who are clearly the Nabataeans. The fact that they defeated the army sent to subjugate them means they were independant, both because they had not already been subjugated and by the fact that their defeat of the army further solidified their independance.
Horatius Flaccus
03-05-2011, 02:08
Fail yourself. The Nabataeans were an organized tribe in 272 BC, indeed they were so at the extreme minimum at least almost 50 before then, almost certainly far longer, maybe even centuries old. Maybe you should have done some research, if one looks even the most effortless search would show that in 311 BC a Diadochi army was thrown back from Petra by enemies who are clearly the Nabataeans. The fact that they defeated the army sent to subjugate them means they were independant, both because they had not already been subjugated and by the fact that their defeat of the army further solidified their independance.
I'm sorry? You didn't do that search until I pointed out to you were you should look. The least you could do is point out the places where you found the information, and share it with Jaertecken. And be a bit nicer in general.
Populus Romanus
03-05-2011, 02:17
Alright.
I am sorry Jaertecken.
And it was not your sources that provided me with that info. It was splattered all over Wikipedia, and then was verified by other sources I checked, including yours, though only later.
Populus Romanus
03-05-2011, 07:15
One of the sources I saw said that it was 311 BC, and went on to say that it was commonly incorrectly dated to 312 BC.
One of the sources I saw said that it was 311 BC, and went on to say that it was commonly incorrectly dated to 312 BC.
Hmmm interesting. Could you forward me the source?
Populus Romanus
03-05-2011, 22:06
Hmmm interesting. Could you forward me the source?
Ja/Oui. http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/volltexte/2010/628/pdf/Wenning_Nabataeans_in_history_2007.pdf I hope this link works. Be warned: what I am talking about is a few pages down.
With the news (see Generals Preview) that the Averni and Aedui will have their starting territories reduced to just Gergovia and Bibracte, respectively has anyone ruled out a Cisalpine Gallic faction (most likely candidate in my opinion would be the Insubres) or will the Boii be used to fill this void?
Also I am willing to bet my torque and chariot that the Suessiones (or some variation upon that tribe) will be a faction.
fomalhaut
03-13-2011, 23:53
idk if the faction list is set in stone yet or what, but man do i really hope for a Syrakuse faction. Playing as them was probably my favorite part of RS, and taking them over or having a Syrakuse migration campaign is probably my favorite thing to do in EB.
Starting with Hiero and Archimedes, a small fleet, and sandwiched in between Carthage, Epeiros and Rome would just be fun! I prefer their hoplites over any other hellen soldier
moonburn
03-14-2011, 06:08
personally i prefer the greek noble cavalry you can have a proper anvil and hammer tactics using them and most importantly you get bruttians in rhegion for the flanks (i prefer them over peltastai) and if you lucky you can visit the baleares and get some nice slingers and assault infantry making the syracusan state army probably one of the strongest one´s available
playing as syracuse the biggest problem will undoutably be your finances and keeping an army in the field since you´ll end up at war with the romans and carthies and therefore lacking in trading partners altough if you play it smart you can probably milk the carthies for a few thousand mnais once you´ve taken lilabeo and then some more when you take sardinia and then corsica and then the baleares putting yourself up as the northern western mediterranean powerhouse (but trade can only take you so far)
also for the navy are there any decent shipyards in the western mediterranean ?
I'm fairly sure that Syracuse has been firmly ruled out.
Horatius Flaccus
03-14-2011, 14:27
I'm fairly sure that Syracuse has been firmly ruled out.
And I'm fairly sure it isn't. :)
That said: I don't think they will be in (the first release).
fomalhaut
03-14-2011, 23:50
I don't see how many other factions could have that much priority over Syracuse. I mean they were clearly a big player in the mediterannean, and just for gameplay purposes i can't think of a more fun starting position and the obstacles that have to be overcome.
You are competing for the master of trade in the Mare against Carthage, for Hellenic dominance against Epeiros, and just in general wary of the rising SPQR. Plus... Hiero and Archimedes!
regardless of their faction-hood, will the Syracusan hoplites have a very unique skin here too? They are the coolest looking hoplite by far, that shield design and their color scheme is beautiful.
Populus Romanus
03-15-2011, 00:53
I don't see how many other factions could have that much priority over Syracuse. I mean they were clearly a big player in the mediterannean, and just for gameplay purposes i can't think of a more fun starting position and the obstacles that have to be overcome.
You are competing for the master of trade in the Mare against Carthage, for Hellenic dominance against Epeiros, and just in general wary of the rising SPQR. Plus... Hiero and Archimedes!
regardless of their faction-hood, will the Syracusan hoplites have a very unique skin here too? They are the coolest looking hoplite by far, that shield design and their color scheme is beautiful.
They really were not that important at all. They only controlled a small portion of Sicily, and even with the Carthaginians spread extremely thin across Iberia, Africa, Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily still could not manage to drive them off the island: the closest Carthage ever came to being driven off the island was at the hands of a certain Epirote whom we are all familiar with, and not by a Syracusan. They were more than willing to submit to Roman domination after just one battle against them in the First Punic War, which shows that they realized that their own strength was pitiful compared to that of the Romans (under any other circumstances, a tyrant like Hiero would have put up more of a fight, rather than condemn themselves to being forever second most important in their own city), and even to that of the Carthaginians. As for trade: they were insignificant. They were only as important in international commerce as Massilia, and Massilia has been conclusively ruled out. Anyways, I doubt a faction would be included because "they traded a bunch". This is a war game, not a money game.
I don't see how many other factions could have that much priority over Syracuse. I mean they were clearly a big player in the mediterannean, and just for gameplay purposes i can't think of a more fun starting position and the obstacles that have to be overcome.
You are competing for the master of trade in the Mare against Carthage, for Hellenic dominance against Epeiros, and just in general wary of the rising SPQR. Plus... Hiero and Archimedes!
regardless of their faction-hood, will the Syracusan hoplites have a very unique skin here too? They are the coolest looking hoplite by far, that shield design and their color scheme is beautiful.
Syracuse wasn't a big player in the Mediterranean by a long shot, throughout our timeframe they basically sat on their corner of Sicily switching allegiances between the bigger regional powers, who they didn't really have the strength to compete with on their own.
This doesn't necessarily rule them out as a future faction mind you.
This is a war game, not a money game. you wanted to say: not a TRADE game.
Taking the recent events prior to EB's start date, and looking at the next 50 years or so, I wouldn't call Syracuse a minor dying Mediterranean faction...
Considering the policy "create your history" within the limits of historical accuracy, that made me love and enjoy this mod, Syracuse just gained internal stability and had the chance to consolidate and expand its power...
fomalhaut
03-15-2011, 03:29
just because the inherent engine limitations prevent honest trading gameplay like EUIII, it doesn't rule out its significance in history. I play EB as a civ game with awesome fighting, not as a war game solely. I think EB tries very hard to add lots of things just to make the idea that your state is a trading powerhouse fun, like the towns renowned for certain crafts and the prevelance of special trade items on the map. Just seeing your little carriages going about is a cool way of showing that there are people going about their lives amidst your battles. gives your battles meaningful context
As far as my understanding goes the criteria required for a faction to make the EBII list is that they must be expansionist (amongst other things). Syracuse, post 272BC was not expansionist, instead it was constantly on the defensive against first the Carthaginians and then the Romans. Although it was a major regional power (defying both Rome and Carthage and playing a major role in Pyrrhus war) it was not an international power. It remains to be seen whether or not the Syracusan state will be included within a newly restructured KH. Compared to other powers in existence at the time of the EBII timeframe (Pergamon, the Arevaci, the Marcommani, the Belgae, the Numidians, the Pritano/Catuvellaunii) Syracuse was not expansive or international in its influence. If Syracuse were to be included as a faction then Rhodes, the Aetolians, the Masallians, the Palmyrans and the Tarentines would also have to be considered as possible factions.
Agreed that the Greeks are very tough to represent...
But Rhodes is already in the KH (most likely); Massalia had at best a garrison; Palmyra unfortunately emerged later on; Taras was garrisoned by retreating Epirotes I'd say...
Aetolia is another difficult matter, maybe the best choice is having an expanded KH with internal divisions...
Epimetheus
03-15-2011, 10:36
We already have the Bosporan Kingdom, which, while being interesting, to my knowledge never played any role at all in any war ever, other than when they were annexed by Pontos. There would not have even been a first Punic War if Hiero hadn't tried to subjugate the Mamertines, and if he had succeeded, Rome probably would have supported him against Carthage.
On the KH front, I'd actually prefer to see it focussed more on the Spartans, the Achaians, and the Aetolians, representing the three major Hellenic powers of our timeframe. Sure, Aetolia wasn't part of the Chremonidean league, but then neither was Rhodos, which was under Ptolemaic rule at the time. As for Athenai, it was hopelessly weak and mostly irrelevant at this point, and a resurgance of power, even among other Hellenes, was highly unlikely.
QuintusSertorius
03-15-2011, 11:54
Sure, Aetolia wasn't part of the Chremonidean league, but then neither was Rhodos, which was under Ptolemaic rule at the time.
No it wasn't. Rhodes was independent, or at least as independent as any poleis could be after Alexander. While it was allied to the Ptolemies, it wasn't ruled by them as Cyprus, for example, was. It didn't lose its nominal independence until it was annexed by Rome in 164BC.
As far as my understanding goes the criteria required for a faction to make the EBII list is that they must be expansionist (amongst other things).
Expansionism was an important requirement for inclusion in EB1, but because of the increased faction-limit the team can stretch things a bit for EB2. The main problem with including Syracuse is the dearth of sources on their post-Alexandrian military. Although Syracuse was the greatest Greek city before (and arguably during) the rise of Athens, by EB's time-frame the city had been sacked repeatedly and was a mere shadow of its former power. The city would certainly have recovered if she had been left alone, but with three expansionist powers interested in Sicily (Carthage, Rome and Epiros under Phyrros) this was never going to happen.
We already have the Bosporan Kingdom, which, while being interesting, to my knowledge never played any role at all in any war ever, other than when they were annexed by Pontos.
Given that the Bosporean kingdom was at the edge of the steppe, they must have had constant conflicts with nomadic warlords. That also accounts for the fact that you didn't hear about them: our history is Mediterranean-centred, so they were mostly ignored until they got into conflict with a Mediterranean power.
On the KH front, I'd actually prefer to see it focussed more on the Spartans, the Achaians, and the Aetolians, representing the three major Hellenic powers of our timeframe. Sure, Aetolia wasn't part of the Chremonidean league, but then neither was Rhodos, which was under Ptolemaic rule at the time. As for Athenai, it was hopelessly weak and mostly irrelevant at this point, and a resurgance of power, even among other Hellenes, was highly unlikely.
I agree Athens was fairly weak at his point, but so was Sparta. Neither of them had the manpower and finances to take on the new Successor empires. That was part of the reason to combine them into one faction.
Rhodos was included in the KH because it was Ptolemy's main ally in the theatre and given that he funded the KH Rhodos' involvement is a sure bet. I admit the case for the KH as a faction is fairly weak, but the team didn't pull it entirely out of the air. It's certainly stronger than that for an alliance between Sparta, Aetolia and Achaia. Also the Aetolian and Achaian leagues were defensive alliances. I am not sure if they could have embarked on a campaign of conquest even if they wanted to.
Populus Romanus
03-16-2011, 02:42
Indeed, there is no case for a Sparta-Aetolia-Achaea alliance. The Aetolians and Achaeans were mortal enemies, and the Spartans and Achaeans were mortal enemies. An alliance between the three would be like an alliance between the USA and the USSR during the height of the Cold War: it would never happen in a million years. Also, the Achaean League did not even exist yet at the start date. The Koinon Hellenon, however, actually works as a faction. Just because Athens was weak does not make it suddenly not allied to Sparta. They were both weak, but together they were a power that nearly drove the Macedonians out of Greece.
fomalhaut
03-16-2011, 03:29
Yeah, and just for gameplay purposes, its nice to have the 'Greek' faction, as opposed to other Hellenic based factions. It's fun as heck to play as KH, since for me i usually take distant coastal regions, make them colonies, and Hellenize them. It's a really interactive campaign, with the various rebellions and scripted scenarios as well as little things like the Spartan Agoge.
Indeed, there is no case for a Sparta-Aetolia-Achaea alliance. The Aetolians and Achaeans were mortal enemies, and the Spartans and Achaeans were mortal enemies. An alliance between the three would be like an alliance between the USA and the USSR during the height of the Cold War: it would never happen in a million years. Also, the Achaean League did not even exist yet at the start date. The Koinon Hellenon, however, actually works as a faction. Just because Athens was weak does not make it suddenly not allied to Sparta. They were both weak, but together they were a power that nearly drove the Macedonians out of Greece. more like germany france and GB :D
ziegenpeter
03-16-2011, 13:33
Yeah, and just for gameplay purposes, its nice to have the 'Greek' faction, as opposed to other Hellenic based factions. It's fun as heck to play as KH, since for me i usually take distant coastal regions, make them colonies, and Hellenize them. It's a really interactive campaign, with the various rebellions and scripted scenarios as well as little things like the Spartan Agoge.
I was always reluctant to start a KH campaign, but it turned out to be one of the coolest campaigns ever. You have so many regionals and so many different ennemies. I never pushed the Macs or Epeirotes out of greece but took the west of asia minor, sicily/southern italy, Kyrene, all the eastern islands and the crimean region. So you really can build a naval empire.
more like germany france and GB :D
You know, that they are really good allies, don't you?
natürlich mein lieber Ziegenpeter,
but all three were mortal enemies most of the time before the second world war and there is still a lot of petty nagging outside of politics, as you "probably" know.
and as far as I know Sparta-Aetolia-Achaea are all members of modern Greece.
the resemblance is just much better than USA and Russia.
ziegenpeter
03-16-2011, 14:23
http://www.pr0gramm.com/data/images/2010/07/trollface.png
;)
EDIT: I just wanted to be a smart ass, since you never said you meant it historically
fomalhaut
03-17-2011, 06:28
mein Gott ist jeder man hier Deutsch ? (Ich lerne immer noch, ich kann so gut wie ein Kind deutsch)
but yeah ziegenpeter it really is cool! your campaign goes all sorts of directions, and for me as well did i not take upper Hellas, but rather expanded myself as a trading/coastal empire. I think everyone of my cities had a port, never went far inland. I loved having Emporion, Massila, Bosporan, Sinope, Rhodes, Syrakuse, etc. None connected by land but by a common culture and my dominant Navy :)
I especially loved when a family member would be born outside of Hellas, they would be sent back to the homeland to participate in the Agoge, always accompanied by one unit of Spartiatai Hoplitai.
moonburn
03-19-2011, 07:06
anyone who loves greek history (like every historian out there) and can´t get the hang of phalanxs would be screwed in eb without the kh and therefore would probably refuse to play eb
eb is great but a big group of people in here (2nd or 3rd biggest) wuv the kh expecially when you finally get the hang of it and when you feel ready you send your top diplomat to x region and get a free city and a new feel to the game
my best moment in eb i must say was when my diplomat arrive in iberia to get a trade agreament and emporion wich was under carthaginian hands rebelled to me i sent my diplomat to arsé to try and make peace before a batle would happen and arsé rebels to me too and i was like wtf i went into debt but sure as hell it was fun the same for crimeia (sadly now it won´t happen with the bosphorans around)
my best moment in eb i must say was when my diplomat arrive in iberia to get a trade agreament and emporion wich was under carthaginian hands rebelled to me i sent my diplomat to arsé to try and make peace before a batle would happen and arsé rebels to me too and i was like wtf i went into debt but sure as hell it was fun the same for crimeia (sadly now it won´t happen with the bosphorans around)
Furthermore, in M2TW, rebelling cities always joint the Rebels faction. They can no longer rebel to another faction. :no:
Populus Romanus
03-19-2011, 17:09
Furthermore, in M2TW, rebelling cities always joint the Rebels faction. They can no longer rebel to another faction. :no:
I actually like that. That feature really annoyed me as Saba, forcing me into war with the Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi before I was ready for it.
ziegenpeter
03-22-2011, 15:13
Well when it happened and it was inconvenient, I sometimes just gave them back their city for a ceasefire
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
03-22-2011, 20:18
I actually like that. That feature really annoyed me as Saba, forcing me into war with the Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi before I was ready for it.
An aspect of the game made even worse by the fact that there are no recruitable generals available so you have no chance of hiring a band of mercenaries to defend the city, and you've got no chance of either moving an army there in time or recruiting a reasonable garrison before the Ptolies or Selecids attacked...
fomalhaut
03-22-2011, 21:19
yep, holding many Arabian and Ethiopian lands with a level 4 is pretty impractical since you can't hire anyone, yet they are often too far to send a fm. the palmyra and other revolting garrisons are only good for destroying whatever is in there for the money and taking the revolting garrison on a killing spree in the region, as there is no way possible to hold on to it without great headache and you sure as heck aint gonna be able to send relief across the arabian desert.
tell me about it, "currently" I'm relying on client rulers imported by ship to keep peace in arabia.
fomalhaut
03-23-2011, 01:39
hopefully this will be addressed in EBII. Saba has such great potential as a really really fun faction.
Populus Romanus
03-23-2011, 02:43
They could address it by adding the Nabatu. Those cities would rebel to them, and unlike the Sab'yn, the Nabatu are right next door.LOL, I just found this hilarious post in this thread!
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
They could address it by adding the Nabatu. Those cities would rebel to them, and unlike the Sab'yn, the Nabatu are right next door.
You've already commented on the post that states quite clearly that provinces rebel to the slave faction at all times. Therefore we would not need to include the Nabatu in some fashion to stop this from happening.
Foot
An aspect of the game made even worse by the fact that there are no recruitable generals available so you have no chance of hiring a band of mercenaries to defend the city, and you've got no chance of either moving an army there in time or recruiting a reasonable garrison before the Ptolies or Selecids attacked...
? I've been able to recruit generals in my Saba campaign.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
03-24-2011, 01:19
? I've been able to recruit generals in my Saba campaign.
Not in Gerrha, Petra, Bostra or Axum because....there aren't any available.
fomalhaut
03-24-2011, 03:18
and those are important places. you can get Greeks farther up the Nile, but i guess they didn't want to go down to ethiopia
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.