This faction represents what is commonly known as the Chremonidian alliance. It was an alliance of city states in the time period we are covering, so it is very much historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist_Peace
Printable View
This faction represents what is commonly known as the Chremonidian alliance. It was an alliance of city states in the time period we are covering, so it is very much historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist_Peace
Thank you for the answer khelvan, i wasn't aware of that and im glad to know it is historical.
AP, read the faction descriptions in the previews, EB worked hard on them! ~;)
No, thank you for discussing things in a civil manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist_Peace
I think it'd be good for the hangers on to know that the same question was asked by a few team members at different times; we didn't just use them because 'the Greeks are already there'; rather, we felt they were a logical faction given the region (though, of course, they aren't the vanilla 'Greeks'). Of course, other options existed, but at this point, I can guarantee that short of any great necessity, our faction decisions are final, and we didn't come to a final faction selection over night. There was a lot of talk about who should be in, and what they did, and their impact in many areas (not just militarily/by conquests, but also trade, internal development, relations to other factions, etc.). This went on for quite some time, and I'm pretty sure folks will be pleased with the final faction list, more or less (I'm sure everyone feels that X could be replaced with Y, and it's not that we don't necessarily agree that certain factions would be great to have, but we simply lack the space at this point). To make a point, I, despite coordinating the 'Britons' (the Casse) did at one point propose changing the faction to a different Celtic faction in the region (such as the Belgae), or possibly even an eastern European faction had been proposed (such as Lugians, but our lack of information on them cut the idea down a bit quickly). There was a lot of talk, and we heard a lot of opinions about where the space could go, and how they'd compare to the current faction, and in the end we kept them, and for good, logical, and historical reasons; however, that doesn't mean that the only right decision was to keep them (some seem to think we have an opinion that we do everything right and snub other opinions; we don't, we do consider any suggestion given in a thoughtful, reasoned manner, however, factions are final at this point, so we regrettably cannot really take into account such suggestions at this time, barring the ability to create new factions, which is unlikely).
I honestly do usually, i guess i just didnt read that one, sorry for my stupid question. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Very well put Ranika. What everyone has to keep in mind is that there are degrees of truth and so degrees of what is considered historical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
By including some factions and not others EB is not trying to imply that anything different from what we do is wrong. It is just a compromise of what we think is more historical accurate (and doable) with what the engine allows us to do.
Yeah. I'm only too glad to answer questions about say why we had the Sauromatae as one faction, or why we choose to call them Phalava instead of Parni, but in the end, it's a bit late to go about changing it.