Printable View
Alll the Factions are great, I know, but if you had to choose, what faction would you take out in favour of a new one/which faction you hate the most/etc. I would not be surprised if there are no votes or countless flames.
(Sorry for my Reckless Spelling)
You don't have to choose. There are an some 10 extra faction slots for EB2. :inquisitive:
EDIT: Voted for the Romani, btw.
Seleukids.
You get my vote for the most useless poll ever. :gah2:
Actually, I believe the true answer would be the Eleutheroi, but that would be impossible.
Yes, lets remove the eleutheroi.
I'm in.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
I say neutral.
GD-this poll is useless.
I am fully aware about the extra ten slots, but there were so many factions trying to get at each oher in those times. Wonder if the EB tea:shame:m will go to ETW, but that seems extremely doubtful.
"Don't have any Romans!" hmm... yeah, right...
I voted nuetral, thinking that eant Eleutheroi. I would love to see the map carpeted with playable factions and the rest unplayable Eremos.
Yeah what have they ever done for us? Apart from giving us a 20% health bonus and a 5% law bonus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Casse... they usualy just sit down and didn't got full britania, and even in alex, their landing force is effectively (often) blocked by aedui... looking one faction sit down with just one territory, and not at war with anyone is somewhat "silly" better to made them extended aedui territory tough...
Butthis was my statement only because Casse inactivity..... If U can made them more aggresive in EB II they're fine anyway...
Remove the Romans!
I gave the Casse 1 Belgian settlement in ~220BCQuote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
It is now 140BC (they are role played as numbers 23 and 18)
https://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e..._G/SPQR140.jpg
Map from this post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=995
Thats a big chunk of Germania there.
Sadly, I did not consider the Eleutheroi in the poll:sweatdrop:.
Sab'yn is a waste, you rarely get to meet them and the sit and squat in that tiny corner of Arabia they got there. Nobody would want to even bother to get there because it is too far from the main field of action (Namely Greece, Italy, Asia Minor and Germany).
Not if you play the ptolemaioi they're not! My cities in the levant are always being attacked by the little buggers and come EB II when naval invasions will actually happen they will make holding on to the upper nile area a real pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatia
Ahh.... I see. Normally I play mainly European Campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Hey, what about this. What if THe EBII team got an extra faction to be with Sab'yn on the Arabic Peninsula or be on east Africa to give The Ptolemaioi EXTREME HELL!!!
:egypt::smash: :laugh4:
Seeing you get pwned would be priceless, especially for sucessor haters.
Dont worry. You'll be fine. :skull:
Plus, the engine requires factions to let cities rebel to. Thus if no Saba what Arabian faction would cover for Arabia Felix (Yemen) ? Should we go back to the days of 0.74 when you'd see Parthia and Ptolemaioi at war over Carna (because Carna rebelled to Parthia because it was chosen to meet this requirement) ?
Well, if the cities rebelled, can't they rebel to the rebels (Slave)?
Ha! no need to worry, I'm about to invade their homelands with my ethiopian army they won't be around for much longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatia
As for a new faction it might happen on the peninsula but not in east africa as there are no more culture slots left (you would have non black family members!).
Also you neglected to place Pergamon on the poll, who is now a confirmed faction >_>
for the sake of more Aggresive Saby'n I suggest EB II gives all the southren arabia with them... not too historic maybe... but it will boost their economic strength... My Ptolemaioi campaign usually quell them relatively easy... they are the weakest faction anyways...
In EB II we're going to try to represent trade and economy better. Especially when it comes to chokepoints, trade routes and valuable resources. Also the naval trade from India to Arabia will be represented better. That and a more fleshed out unit rooster will make the Sabaeans a somewhat stronger enemy especially if they're allowed to get a monopoly on the Arabian peninsula.
exactly. this is a historic mod, so no, they probably won't give any real territory, aside from what is already in EB I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
a neighboring tribe, like that in himyar** or qataban**, or even a Omani faction (tribe of azd*) would be a better idea, as it has been my observation that having multiple factions close to one another increases activity (look at gaul, AS, ptolies, etc).
*I don't know for sure if they were unified at the time, though I know the lakhmids and ghassanids came from there, and they were very quarrelsome. perhaps its just distance in time and place?
**strabo did IIRC mention both, especially qataban (Cattabania), so they would ave existed in the EB time frame. but whether they were of any importance politically in the EB timeframe is a mystery. I know Himyar was the top dog from c.100AD on to 525AD, but not about beore hand.
Makedonia. What a useless faction.
Dumb polls and quoting yourself in your sig. You're starting to grow on me, son.
Oh, Lusitani. Definitely. Maybe.
But you are speaking sarcasm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
:tongue:
Lol
None of em ....
:belly:
:tumbleweed:
~:grouphug:
:weirdthread:
Romani, definitely.
Qatabân was about the same strength as Saba by our gamestart. While the Sabaeans might have a bigger population, the Qatabân king had better control over trade resources. He was also the one carrying the title mukkarib, which inclined that the carrier was the most influential king of the region. However in an all war situation it could go either way as the difference wasn't that big, though Qatabân usually tended to be the winner untill the uprise of the Himyar. When it was largely Saba and Himyar who were contending each other. Then we still have the Ma'in and Hadramawt who were working together in a way, sort of alliance perhaps, who alone were weaker thn the Qatabân and Sabaeans but together were in league. However the Ma'in and hadramawt only tried to rival economically anf tradewise and were not under such a centralised poltical structure as the Sabaeans and Qatabân or so it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
This poll is a bit like a broken pencil.
...
Pointless.