OK I understand the rest but still Parthia had like 3 provinces iirc in vanilla, no reason maurya can't be the same...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
and whaddaya think of the rest of the ideas
Printable View
OK I understand the rest but still Parthia had like 3 provinces iirc in vanilla, no reason maurya can't be the same...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
and whaddaya think of the rest of the ideas
The Yuezhi were not even slightly related in language and dress to the Celts and Greeks. The only relation at all was that Celtic, Greek, and Tocharian were all Indo-European, which is to say that they are not closely related at all. As far as dress is concerned, the only relation between the Celts, Greeks, and Yuezhi was that they all wore clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meroveous
Wusun would be a totally different matter, and even less closely related to western factions. All this is moot, though, as neither faction in its position c. 272 BC would be on the EB map.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Their material culture, as in use of plaids and conical hats for religious figures, was similar to the Celts. Their use of funerary masks was similar to the Greeks. Their centum language was quite distinct as the Indo-Iranians speak a satem language. So all of that would make them a unique faction in that region. The Tarim Basin (which is on the EB map).
As far as an emerging faction, they forced the Saka out of the Illi Valley and Lake Issyk Kul circa 175 BC, so they were a regional force with a distinct culture that was more urbanized than that of the Saka.
The use of conical hats and plaids was noted by professor Mair, head of East Asian studies at U Penn, as being something similar in dress to what the Celts wore. The funerary masks were seen by his team as also being reminiscent (sp) of Mycenaean (sp) culture. There are material similarities. As far as language all three groups speak a centum, as opposed to satem, languages, which are related albeit distantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The same professor Mair believes that the Wusun and Yuezhi were a very closely related people, and that their cultures probably became even closer following the Yuezhi migration. It might also explain why Pompeius Trogus associates the Asiani (Asin/Wusun) with the Tocharians (Tukhara) in his writings.
The Saka surround the Tarim Basin on the map, and that is where the Yuezhi and Wusun were located before the former ousted the Saka from Issyk Kul in 175 BC.
Firstly, the Tarim mummies that have been found wearing clothing decorated in plaid patterns date to well before the EB timeframe (some 400 years or more earlier), and their identification as Yuezhi or the ancestors of the Yuezhi is highly speculative. Secondly, even if those mummies could be identified with certainty as Yuezhi, their wearing plaid does not in any way connect them to the Celts. Thirdly, what conical caps were worn by Celts? As for the funerary masks, that connects them as much with China as it does with Greece. Tocharian was an Indo-European language, so it was closely related to the Iranian languages spoken by the other steppe nomads and would not be that unique (plus we know very, very little about it during the EB timeframe). Finally, only a portion of the Tarim basin is represented on the EB map, and like with the Indians, the Yuezhi and Wusun would not be able to be properly represented on the map as they were located c. 272 BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meroveous
I don't know about being more urbanized, but yes, they were a distinct culture and a regional force, as were the Mauryan Indians, but like the Indians, it simply isn't feasible for them to be implemented in EBII.Quote:
As far as an emerging faction, they forced the Saka out of the Illi Valley and Lake Issyk Kul circa 175 BC, so they were a regional force with a distinct culture that was more urbanized than that of the Saka.
We know so little about the Yuezhi and the Wusun that we can't even say with any certainty who they were ethnically and culturally, let alone how similar or different they became over time.Quote:
The same professor Mair believes that the Wusun and Yuezhi were a very closely related people, and that their cultures probably became even closer following the Yuezhi migration. It might also explain why Pompeius Trogus associates the Asiani (Asin/Wusun) with the Tocharians (Tukhara) in his writings.
:inquisitive: This not vanilla. A Maurean satrapy has been mentioned as a candidate, but the Maurean empire as a whole is definitely out. The EB map contains only a small part of the Maurean Empire. That empire was also focused on the rest of India, not the EB map. There is no way the challenges and expansion of this faction can be realistically simulated on the current map set-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani
As for the other ideas, the Arrevaci (Celt-Iberians) and Numidians are safe bets. Chances on an Illyrian faction and the Belgae are also good. The rest however are unlikely: the Scyths were in decline and being pushed away by the Sarmatians. I would love to see the Bastarnae, but their inclusion has been denied repeatedly. We may see the Bosporean Kingdom in the same area however. Germans are possible, although even the German FC has admitted the inclusion of the Sweboz was a bit of stretch. They weren't particularly sophisticated in 272 BC and with the exception of the Suebi did not operate above tribe level. The Teutons are IIRC rather obscure to: we'd be more likely to see the Cimbri or the Cherusii. There certainly are not going to be four factions on the British isles. Erain (the pre-Goidelic Irish) have been mentioned as a candidate a couple of times, but not recently. Ranika favoured the Brigantes, but that was the last we heard from them.
There's been some talk about either the Boii or the Lugii as well, to fill up the vast area of Eleutheroi provinces in eastern europe, as well. And some very subtle hints about some eastern faction. This could however refer to the Mauryan Satrapy which Ludens mentioned.
The fact that someone from the team also hinted that there would be two new factions in the saba/cathage cuture group, seems to imply that there will, apart from thye rayther plausible numidian faction also be another, Mauretania, perhaps... or maybe Nabateans. However, if there are to be 10 or 9 new factions, there must be yet more surprises waiting for us in the shadows...
But this is all just guesswork.
Gaaahhh!
EB team; Deliver me from this agony and reveal your factions!!!
(Just kidding!:laugh4:)
Who dared give that away??? Now you know about Nubia!!! Or was it Cyrenaica?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator
MP: the bit on the pointy hats is probably in reference to the Halstatt period golden conical hats. That's one heck of a huge stretch, but I'd guess that's what Mair was thinking of--either that or he was talking out of the whole between his cheeks.
EDIT: and guys, in case y'all were wondering, we haven't even settled on all the new factions...so make your cases, we're definitely still listening. we're also working on the map...
I never said they were Celts. I said their culture is a related one, as are all Indo-European cultures, and the conical hats were found in France, I believe, and are believed to have been used by priests.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
As far as language, no they are more closely related to Celtic, Greek, Italic or Germanic as those are centum as opposed to satem languages, the Indo-Iranians speak a satem language and Tocharian is a centum language.
We are actually not as woefully ignorant about them as you make it seem. The Chinese had written about them extensively, and as China has become more open we have learned much more about them as an ethnic group. Their culture is still a bit of a mystery, but the Chinese and Trogus tied them to the trading cities encircling the Taklamakan desert.
True only part of the Tarim is seen on the map. However if the map is expanded, considering the Americas would be gone, the entire Tarim could be included and the Saka removed from Issyk Kul and placed further west by the Illi Valley, which is a bit more accurate.
The EBI map has 199 provinces. M2TW maximum allowed provinces is 199. We cannot include anymore, regardless of america being gone or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meroveous
Foot
Plaid clothing, conical hats, and death masks are aspects of material culture that can and do appear independently in different cultures simply because they are basic concepts. These do not make their cultures related, even if those mummies could be identified as Yuezhi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meroveous
The problems is that many declarations are made about linking archaeological finds to ethnic groups, like the Yuezhi, but this is difficult with sedentary groups in a region like the Tarim basin where different groups mixed, let alone a group like the Yuezhi who moved quite a bit. They are still very mysterious, and what little the Chinese have written about them in the Shiji and the Hanshu is enlightening but often lacking in details.Quote:
We are actually not as woefully ignorant about them as you make it seem. The Chinese had written about them extensively, and as China has become more open we have learned much more about them as an ethnic group. Their culture is still a bit of a mystery, but the Chinese and Trogus tied them to the trading cities encircling the Taklamakan desert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
Hmm really? In that case I think I'll a present a few factions that have been talked about very little (obviously I have no idea if they have already been accepted or rejected by the team):
The Treveri (also have various alternate names in both Latin and Greek):
These would be a Celto-Germanic tribe situated between the Sweboz and the current Gallic factions. They would thus have access to both Germanic units and Celtic units, and were in particular famed for their cavalry (in De Bello Gallico). Their victory conditions could be all of Gaul and Germany. They would be a good inclusion for their variety of units, both Celtic and Germanic, and would hinder the expansion of the Sweboz. Including them would also mean that you are adding a new Celtic faction and a new Germanic faction without taking up 2 faction slots! Of course, some may say the Belgae do it better, but I assume they are already in...
The Insubres:
This would be an exclusively Cisalpine Celtic faction (at the start of the game that is). This would mean that the Aedui would lose Mediolanum (as it was the Insubrian capital), and thus would focus more on Gaul itself (this is more accurate also?). The Cisalpine Gauls were particuarly troublesome to the Italic peoples, and would be very enjoyable to play (I say this while playing an Aedui campaign in which I moved all my forces into Italy at the start of the game, abandoning Transalpine Gaul). Their victory conditions could be all of Italy (and the islands), Sicily, Southern Gaul, and the city of Carthage. As they conquer Italy, they gain access to a whole new unit roster, including mixed Celtic-Hellenic infantry. The best part of playing a barbarian faction is smashing up the civilised factions and adopting their more developed arms and technology, which is why I also suggest the next faction:
Tylis:
Although their expedition into Greece was defeated in 279, and they were again beaten by Antigonos Monopthalamos soon after, these Celts continued to expand into Thrace, and could be preparing for another invasion of Greece. Their migration into this area caused great changes, and the player could continue this migration further. Their unit roster would be extremely varied, with Celtic, Thracian, Hellenic, and Scythian units in the immediate area. Their victory conditions could be all of Thrace, Illyria, Greece and the Aegean, and Asia Minor from the Aegean to Galatia. They were conquered in 212 BCE, but so was Carthage (realistically), only ten years after that date.
The inclusion of these factions would not take up many unit/model/building slots. Each of these factions was more historically important (and I think would be more enjoyable to play) than factions such as the Casse or the Saba, which will nevertheless remain in EBII. All of these factions would provide different playing experiences to those of every other faction in the game (which is more than can be said for Epeiros/Makedonia/KH or Aedui/Arverni or Ptolemaioi/AS), and thus are all important additions to EBII for both historical accuracy and gameplay.
I can't believe you gyus still listen to us after 25 pages of Meroe, Mauryans and Bartix, but if this is still the case, I'll have a go at it.'Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
I have compiled this from varius sources, primarily encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica, NE (swedish), and some Wikipedia too, although I'm not to fond of it. I've also used some other works of reference concerning ancient warfare and geography. And then, of cource, Herodotos!:book:
So, here goes:
Cappadocia
Cappadocia was incorporated into the realm of Perdiccas ca. 322 b.C, having been left relatively untouched by Alexander the Great.
However, after the defeat of Perdiccas’s Anatolian forces by Antigonos, the descendants of the earlier satrap of Cappadocia, Ariarathes, were soon reinstated as rulers of the southern part of the region, i.e. Kappadokia, not Kappadokia Pontika, which became the kingdom of Pontus.
The kingdom of Cappadocia would remain under the same dynasty for ca 200 years, and most kings were named Ariarathes.
After the battle of Ipsos in 301 b.C, the Cappadocian kings were forced to accept Seleucid Overlordship, but still remained fairly autonomous.
In 272 b.C, the ruler of Cappadocia was named Ariamnes II. He seems to have received further autonomy around 270 b.C, as, sometime after 250 b.C, his son, Ariarathes III assumed the title of King.
The Cappadocian kings remained relatively Seleucid-friendly until the defeat of Antiochos III at Magnesia in 190 b.C, after which the Cappadocian kings shifted their allegiance to the Romans.
During the 3rd and 2nd century b.C. they were regularly involved in the wars of the region, particularly against Pontos, and they were members of several alliances formed during the period.
After Ariarathes VII was murdered around 100 b.C, (apparently on the orders of Mithradathes VI Eupator of Pontus), a Pontic puppet ruler was appointed. During the following tumult in Anatolia, Cappadocia came under Pontic, Armenian, and ultimately, Roman control, though still ruled by puppet kings, loyal to the Romans.
However, after the last of these kings, Archelaos, Emperor Tiberius incorporated Cappadocia into the Roman Empire (ca. 17 A.D.).
Apparently, the Cappadocian kings inscribed the years of reign on their coins, making it easier to reconstruct their line of kings.
Kings of Cappadocia during the EB time frame in chronological order (according to Wikipedia):
• Ariamnes II 280-230 BCE
• Ariarathes III 255-220 BCE
• Ariarathes IV Eusebes 220-163 BCE
• Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator 163-130 BCE
• Orophernes 157 BCE
• Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator 130-116 BCE
• Ariarathes VII Philometor 116-101 BCE
• Ariarathes VIII 101-96 BCE
• Ariarathes IX ca. 95 BCE
• Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios 95-ca. 63 BCE
• Ariobarzanes II Philopator ca. 63-51 BCE
• Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philoromaios 51-42 BCE
• Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos 42-36 BCE
• Archelaus 36 BCE-17 AD
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Cappadocia"
A possible unit rooster for the Cappadocians would include some cavalry, as Cappadocia was famous for its horses. One could consider the “Cappadocian Cavalry” unit already available to Pontos, and perhaps some lighter, skirmisher-type cavalry. Otherwise, the Cappadocians would have a primarily “eastern” unit rooster with some Persian and native Anatolian units, though influenced by Hellenic military traditions. They would also have rather easy access to both Galatian and Scythian auxiliaries.
The only description of Cappadocian warriors that I have found comes from Herodotos, in his description of the army of Xerxes during his European campaign. This is of course a description of a typical Cappadocian warrior some 200 years before the EB era, but it might still convey some rudimentary ideas of what the Cappadocians looked like.
According to Herodotos they carried the same armament as the Paphlagonians, i.e. short spears, small shields, and “plaited” helmets (however that works):inquisitive:. In addition, they also carried javelins and
daggers. Apparantly, they also wore traditional boots.
Gameplay-wise, the Cappadocians would begin with only one settlement; Mazaka. From here, they would have the choice of either advancing eastwards or westwards.
Should they go eastwards into Syria or the lower Caucasus, this would give them access to some better Persian-style units, and Scythians (and eventually some Hellenic units), but would most likely bring them into conflict with the Seleucids, Hayasdan and possibly even the Phalava, should they advance beyond Mesopotamia.
Should they go westwards, on the other hand, they would quickly get access to powerful Galatian units, but this would bring them into conflict with the numerous minor kingdoms in western Anatolia, such as Pontos, Pergamon and maybe even Makedonia. The Seleucids would be a constant threat in this direction too, but their Anatolian possessions might be an easier prey than their eastern heartlands.
Still, there are negative sides to this faction as well. Compared to many other contemporary kingdoms, their area of influence was somewhat limited, and even though their kings at times showed a will to expand (gaining influence over, for example, Cilicia, even though temporarily), they never managed to build any greater “empire”. One of the reasons for this might be that for much of their history, they were under either Seleucid or Roman vassalage.
Also, their position is a very dangerous one, locked between the Hai, AS, Ptolemaioi, and Pontos, and very close to the heartlands of the “Grey Death”:skull:.
Still, I think that they would make an interesting addition to EB, as they were obviously active during the period, and are rather easy to find information on.
As always, I do stress that this is just a suggestion, and the EB-team is free to ignor this, if they so wish.:beam:
I'd like to have a go with these. they sound quite interesting, like a Numidia in the East. Small, surrounded by tricky peeps, but certainly fun. I'm placing a wager on Numidia and the Boii to be included, along with the Bosphoron Kingdom. I've said before, but I'll say again, the Lugii (Vandals). These not only fill a gap (The Baltic), but there would be a nice josting in Eastern Europe between them, Swezboz, and the Boii. This would also prevent any one of them becoming super-powerful. If not the Boii, then maybe the Helvetii?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
but wouldn't the place be kind of congested in Anatolia? I mean with 2-4 small kingdoms in one area, gameplay wise may be too quick for most tastes..who knows? i gather by my family and immediate friends.
now a bosphoran kingdom would be nice, but I will wait and see what the EB team will come up with next.
Indeed it would be, which is one of the downsides with this faction. However, they would not reduce the amount of eleutheroi territory in anatolia, as the province Kappadokia is currently owned by the AS, so there would still be ample space to expand without having to start a war with another faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
To the west, there is galatia and Bithynia, while to the east, they have lesser Armenia and Pontos Parlaios (sp?).
OK well since there are 9 factions left with the confirmation of Pergamon:Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
1: the Scythians (I still think this could be possible, a kind of "regain your old glory" campaign) so the sarmatians can be countered and don't start invading Germany, Armenia, and Greece all at once by 190BC
OR the Bosporan Kingdom for the same reason as Scythians, plus the NE map needs more factions
2: The Belgae as a counter to both Gauls and Suebi
OR even more interesting a Celto-Germanic culture
3: another British tribe to counter the Casse like maybe the Erain or Caledonians, it'd be pretty cool to have this little war going on between 2 factions over the 2 islands
4: the Nabataean kingdom to help stop the yellow and grey deaths
5: A Mauryan Satrapy (NOT THE WHOLE DAMN EMPIRE, just a small satrapy I meant)
6: an celt-Iberian faction to rival Lusitanians and Carthaginians
7 & 8: the 2 Numidian Kingdoms to populate Africa and fight Carthage as well as each other
9: Nubians to help stop yellow death
Whaddaya think about the new and revised list? As you can see I'm not that big of a fan of the tiny Greek city-states (Syracuse, Cyrene, etc)
If you think that a Nabataia could do much of anything to stop the Seleukids or the Ptolemies in a TW game, then you are delusional. Same for the Nubians.
You'd work great as a diplomat :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Although, I agree. With the TW engine it would be hard to make Nubians and Nabataians to have a chance against AS & Ptolemaioi, mostly due to supply lines and not that "good hit & run game mechanics". Ptolemaioi would be able to reach most modern Jordan/northwest Saudi-Arabian territories in one turn (especially if city hopping), making it difficult for trait morale penalties to kick in. Nubia...well an educated guess says that their unarmoured troops wouldnt fare that well against the Ptolemaioi either, as the Ptolemaioi would be able to send stacks down and since climate isn't properly represented it would be onesided (Thorakitai VS Nubian warriors in loincloth).
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
well they did manage to hold off until Trajan's rein...
but I agree on Nubia
I can't agree with this. During gameplay Saba often captures Ethiopia by rebellion and in my experience the Ptolemaioi are not able to conquer it back. Nabatea/Nubia/Cyrene would give more balance to the area (the Seleucids have to fight on about 5 fronts, the Ptolemies only on one)Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
But you forgot to take into account the crucial part of his sentence: in a TW game... Possible, to survive? Well, that's what it's a TW game for; so yes. But likely? No. It took a few rather nasty armies to keep Baktria, Pahlava and Pontos in the race in 1.x ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani
well, I'll just wait and see. the wger lines are drawn, and I plan to win (no, wger-lines have nothing to do with "wagers(bets)"). its a form of debate really.
@ mithridates: I'm still a little uncertain. but since you reminded me of the fact thatr kappadocia is in what is now EB1.1 seleukid terrtory, then i guess it should work.
I'd like to see Syracuse as a faction. I'm sure you guys can work it out so that Syracuse isn't expansionistic but Syracuse was definately a lot more than an insignificant city. They had different alliances with Rome, Carthage etc and I am pretty sure that it was a big trading city. Also I think some Archemedian weapons would be brilliant.
Belgians
Numidians
Insubres
Another British faction
Galatians
Celtiberians
That leaves two more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
ya your right either yellow death or saba take nabataia around like 245BC so maybe nabatu wouldn't be such a good idea unless maybe they can get phalanxes/estern units, kind of a mix of AS, ptolmey, jewish, and arabian units and also make tham very expansionist so thay at least manage to maintain a small power base in judaea/syria/arabia/whatever
Yes, I think it would. Also, it would make the situation in eastern anatolia a bit more interesting too: not just a pushing-match between AS and the Ptolemaioi, with Pontos making occational insurrections from the north. This, plus the fact that there are already quite a few units that could make up their unit rooster in-game, so they would not take up so many unit-slots, could actually make them a candidate for a faction. The EB-team might think otherwise, though. I am, after all, by no means an expert on Cappadocia, so my research is somewhat rudimetary and there might be other conditions, that I have overlooked, which would make them unfit for this purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
On the issue of Nabatea: Sure, they might gain controll of Nabatea and Sinai, which would give them a power base to build on. However, as they are primarily focused on light troops, they might be a fun challenge to play for a human player, but the AI would probably need a lot of financial and military help, to be able to survive, given that they will have to fight a two-front war against both ptollies and AS, with merely light arabian levies. Especially the Ptolemaioi, as they have their backs covered, and thus can concentrate all thier forces in the levant.
Meroe AND the AS could do a better job at stopping the Ptolies than just the AS. Same goes for Nabataea. Meroe could actually build full stack armies which the Eleutheroi can't. While Meroe would have a one front war to dedicate all it's cannon fodder to, the Ptolies would have to take care of the AS as well as Meroe, and if they couldn't do it quickly, then there would be the possibility of having Carthage up their legs for a three front war. As for Nabataea, I'm not sure how it would turn out.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Dude, really? I mean, really? What could Meroe do that a few rebel cities couldn't? The AI is a bit smarter in M2TW than in RTW. Meroe wouldn't attack a strong Ptolemaic kingdom, but you better believe that the latter would attack the former. Even at their weakest Egypt could mobilize thousands upon thousands of troops in emergencies. Besides, do you know what type of troops Meroe would have? Yeah, try sending some spearmen with wicker shields against a phalanx.
I don't mean to be a dick, but when I keep seeing the same factions mentioned again and again that have already been shot down it gets old. At least Nabataia has some viability. Meroe has none. They are so below the military horizon it isn't even funny. It would be like when Poland sent a cavalry force against German tanks.
Hear hear. Shame though. If we could have unlimited factions, Meroe WOULD be fun to play, but as far as Historical Accuracy is concerned, it's bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Boii and Numidians of somesort would be almost needed. Numidians would need reforms (possibly March of Time) for when that roman centurian (foret the name) went over to train them. I would actually love to ply them (but not before playing the new Makedon, Baktria, and Romanoi!)
Same goes for Saba, Casse...such argument has no logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
It would be interesting to hear why Nabataia has more viability than Meroe, afaik it was kingdom weaker to Kushite kingdom in all aspects whether it comes to population, military or wealth. I understand that some members of EB team might be a bit tired of this issue but that does not approve them to speak about Kushites like they were a bunch of dirty african savages. They were in fact more developed than some of the factions currently in EB. I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2, but it is mostly due to engine restrictions and not their "viability".Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Sorry to say that but Meroe is going to be mentioned again and again considering how uncertain the facts about Meroe are and the number of people who would like to play as such an exotic faction.
*sigh*
There are loads of possible factions (bithynia, Odrysiai, cappadocia, mauretania, Aitolian leauge, Atropatene, Caucasian Iberia, whatever) that have recieved marginal, if any, attention in this thread. Meanwhile, Meroë, Muryans, Yuhezi, Caledonians and their likes are suggested over and over again, despite the fact that the EB-team explicitly has declared that they will not be included.
So, please: Make your suggestions (preferably motivated by facts), discuss their viability gameplay-wise/History-wise, make examples for their unit-roosters...
...but for the love of god, leave the Nubians to their destiny!!!:wall:
No offense, people, but its getting repetitive...
This is a Faction suggestion thread. If you want to discuss Meroe I suggest you find somewhere else to do so.
No one on the EB team has suggested that they were african savages, but we've had enough of people bringing them up on these boards.
Foot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Okay so I personally am fed up with your whining and moaning, maybe the moderators will delete this post but I got to get it off my chest.
You wonder why Nabataia is being talked about and Meroe is not being considered? It's because TA let slip (red herring (?)) that there will be four factions in the culture that presently contains Carthage and Saba. Nabataia would fall into this grouping Meroe wouldn't even come close. While I personally wouldn't include either in my top 10 wish list there it is. Foot stated point blank in post #280 of this thread that due to culture restrictions Meroe could never be presented properly. Its not about military makeup or in game survival or the map lacking regions where they would historically likely to expand. What it come down to is if you want to see Meroe presented as having a ruling light skin family. Is that how you wish Meroe to be presented because with the culture limits that what you would end up with?
And as far as the large number of people you claim wanting to play this faction a search through this very thread can only find 15 people who are willing to voice this opinion of including in the 10 new factions slot Meroe/Kush/Axum/Nubia.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And amongst those 15 almost half of those are from accounts, six in fact, that have posted less than 25 times in the forums. And while a couple of these may be legitimate accounts that deserve to have their thoughts heard, the vast majority appear to be puppet accounts or trolls & their real purpose should be questioned.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
There are in fact more posts in this thread ruling out the inclusion of Meroe than there are people who have posted wanting them. So I am really at a loss where you are coming from with "how uncertain the facts about Meroe are", they are very certain it isn't going to be included as a faction in EBII.
It's probably already been suggested, but Massalia would be sweet. Of course, this is most unlikely, as there probably isn't a lot of historical information regarding the city, and Western Europe is crowded enough as it is. I just thought I'd let the word "Massalia" hang in the air for a while...
:yes:
EDIT: Massalia.
Massalia.
Maaa...saaaa....liaaa...
Yeah you should probably remove my name from that list, seeing as I merely said that it's clear that there won't be a Nubian faction. And because I said that, it must be clear to you that I am actually a "puppet account" for someone who really doesn't want the Nubians to be included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Edward
Next time please actually read people's posts. Merely because I don't have many posts on the .org doesn't mean I'm a puppet account or an ignoramus (I am actually a coder and scripter of Hegemonia: City States). Rather, it probably means that I spend more time on the TWC...
To stay on topic, one of the issues with city-states (such as Syracuse, Kyrene, Massalia etc.) is whether they would make for a fun/historical campaign. They never really expanded to create a large empire, but, (as the mod likes the idea of 'changing history') this isn't the biggest issue. It is rather that it is hard to imagine states so inwardly focused to carve out such empires, and this could make game experience much less enjoyable. I find that in many EB campaigns, when one's empire has become quite large, and their historical enemies have been defeated, the game becomes less enjoyable as it is by this point so far seperated from history that everything just seems meaningless. For example, in a Carthaginian campaign, once Spain and Rome have been conquered, you can't help but think: What now? With city-states and possibly other small factions, it would perhaps seem this way from the start, as these cities historically maintained their own borders without the need for RTW-style conquest. Would it be realistic/enjoyable to conquer the world with such factions?
Another major issue with this is the behaviour of the AI. Imagine if you were playing as the Romani, and, entering into Gaul, found it completely under the control of the 'Massalia' faction. Or if you started a Sweboz campaign hoping for a migration to Italy and a war against the Romans, but, on arriving there, found it under the dominion of the city-state Syracuse. I think the inclusion of such factions is not needed for either historical or gameplay reasons. Factions with historical victory conditions (e.g. Romani conquering the Mediterranean, Parthians conquering the Seleucid lands) or reasonable victory conditions (e.g. Gallic factions needing to have control of all Gallic lands, the Treveri needing both Gallic and Germanic lands) make for both more realistic and more enjoyable mods. Of course, seeing as we have quite a few slots to fill, it would perhaps be good to use one of them for such a faction (perhaps Massalia). Any thoughts?
Seems I have to quote myself:
I didn't want to bring this stuff back but it really makes me pissed when someone writes things like Meroe is "bullshit" and "completely below the military horizon". I researched a bit on Meroe and from the limited knowledge I know that this simply isn't true. But yeah, Foot is right, it is no longer topic for this thread. I apologize for making the mess :embarassed:Quote:
I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2
So once more for those people who have some problems with reading:
Quote:
I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2
According to Wikipedia, that's a propaganda myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Can anyone else think of a rather notable power of this period that may or may not have begun as a city state (that may or may have been built on seven hills). :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Turnus
But seriously, I can see where you're coming from, it does make a lot of sense but I think its really function of how the game works. I don't we'd have a problem imagining Massila exerting influence on some smaller towns down the road, and opening some colonies along the coast, but there's no way to represent this is the game. Its either stay in your city, or march hundreds of kilometers and conquer a vast tract of land occupied by numerous Gallic tribe. There isn't much of a middle step.
Going on a bit of tangent, I think you can apply this to any faction (Hayastan, Saba, Casse) that start with only one city. You just go conquer that first city, even if you don't have the same kind of reasoned excuse (I guess something along the lines of "He called your sister fat and to rub it in he stole all of your goats; now, to reclaim your honour you must go subjugate his people") that is developed as role-playing builds up later in the game.
Okay, think I'm wrong? Prove it. Give me a detailed analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Also, I didn't say one damn thing about "dirty savages". Throwing words around like that is not cool, Son of Perun. Not cool.
Sorry, Ludens. WWII isn't my specialty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Okay, Folks!
As Foot said, this is a suggestion thread, so I thought I'd just continue to make cases for factions that haven't been discussed that much.
I agree that this one might be a bit of a stretch, especially given the arguments that have been presented against Massilia and other small city states, but I thought I'd just throw it in there anyway.
Maybe it has already been rejected officialy by the EB-team, but I have not been able to locate any post saying this, so if that is the case, just inform me of this fact, and I will speak of in no more.:beam:
Aetolian Leauge
The Aetolian League was initially formed ca. 367 b.C, by the leading cities of Aetolia to counter Spartan power. The leading city of the league was Thebes, despite its location in Boeotia. In the late 300:s, early 200:s, it gained power by opposing both the Achaean League and the Macedonians. The Aitolians defeated the Celtic invasion in 279 b.C, and thus saved the temple of Apollon at Delphi from being looted, meanwhile the League expanded territory-wise, and gained control over areas outside the original constraints of Aetolia.
During the 3rd century b.C, tensions grew between the Aechaeans and the Aitolians, reaching its climax during the Aetolian war (220-217), where the Aetolians were forced to fight an alliance of Aechaeans and Macedonians. By this time, however, they had gained much territory, expanding into both Boeotia and large portions of Thessaly, thus controlling most of central Greece.
The war resulted in the Aetolians in their turn forming an alliance with the Romans, and Aetolian forces were present at Kynoskefalai in 197 b.C, where they helped the Romans defeat the Macedonian army of Philip V.
The continued Roman intervention in Greek affairs made the Aetolians more antagonistic to the Roman cause, though, and they sided with Antiochos III during his war with Rome in 190. Antiochos was defeated at Magnesia, though, and the Aetolians were forced to sue for peace.
This resulted in them being forced to pay heavy fines, and many Aetolian warriors started selling their services as mercenaries. The power of the League was thus broken, and its territory was soon incorporated into the roman province of Achaea.
The Aetolian League was not ruled by kings, but by a gathering of the leaders of the cities.
The Aetolians would start with only Aetolia, and would thus have a very complicated starting position. Their best bets would be either to try to expand at the expense of the Macedonians (Demetreias, Korinthos), or else, they would have to find alternate routes of expansion, such as Crete, Sicily or Thrace. (I think they had some interests in Crete in reality too, actually.)
The Aetolians along the coasts were very Hellenized, but inland, the land was hevily influenced by Illyran culture and traditions. Thus, their units might be a combination of classical hoplites and some Illyrian units, and some Macedonian-style units, which would become available should they expand in such a direction. The fact that Aetolia is a mountainous region would result In relatively few an light cavalry types, though.
There are several negative sides to this faction, though:
Their initial position is a very difficult one, surrounded by several larger factions, some of them hostile, and with basically nowhere to expand. Thus, the AI might have some problems with getting anywhere, and might be swallowed up way too quickly. Also, there are already quite a few factions fighting for dominance over Hellas, so it might get a bit too crowded with 4 factions, dispersed over rather few provinces.
This could be helped, maybe, by adding a new province to Greece. This would, of course, require the deletion of another province on the map, and this would perhaps be stretching it a bit too far…:sweatdrop:
Anyway, I thought a new faction suggestion would make a welcome break from the eternal discussion on Meroë…
What kind of ... sources do you have for this?Quote:
The Aetolians along the coasts were very Hellenized, but inland, the land was hevily influenced by Illyran culture and traditions. Thus, their units might be a combination of classical hoplites and some Illyrian units, and some Macedonian-style units, which would become available should they expand in such a direction. The fact that Aetolia is a mountainous region would result In relatively few an light cavalry types, though.
Aitolians spoke the same NW greek (that Epeirotes and Makedones also used) that was so intelligible to Southern Greeks that they just couldn't get it. Phillipos V of Makedonia wondered whether they spoke greek at all, that is how heavily accented they were. It has been suggested that NW Greek was a Dorian Greek Idiom and this seems to be the truth seeing that Dorians from Elis (where Olympia is located) originally came from Aitolia and Akarnania.
Thebes was the seat of "Koinon Boioton" not of Aitolian league. It was an enemy of Aitolians before being beaten into a pulp by them by 240's or so.
The sources that I have used are mainly various encyclopedias, primarily NE, which is the swedish equivalent of Encyclopedia Britannica. I have, however, used some Wikipedia as well. Didn't find as much info on this as on cappadocia, though.
I admit that my "research" is rudimentary, at best, so please inform me if anything is missing, or any obvious mistakes:yes:
However, to clarify some things, that might have been vague...
When I said that Thebes was the leading city, I did not mean as the capital of Aetolia, but rather, as the leading city of the coalision that opposed sparta when the League was firs formed. however, this is not how it appears in the text. Sorry 'bout that... The Aetolians did fight the Boiotians later, defeating them ca 245 b.C, I think... forgot to mention this, though:embarassed:. The important cities in Aetolia, I gather, were Thermon and Kalydon.
When it comes to the language, I am aware of this fact, however did not mention it.
I know that the "very" hellenized is going a bit to far, but what I meant was that the military would be of a hellenic type.
In general, I refered to how I imagined their soldiers would have been, not so much their culture or ethnicity
Anyway, thanks for the comments!
Cheers!
EDIT: concerning the "Illyrian" part; the Aetolians were not Illyrians, however the population was quite intermixed with Illyrians, it seems.
EDIT2: Still didn't seem right, so I edited the bit about language and hellenism bit.
Man, what a mess...:sweatdrop:
I reckon the Nabataeans should get a go, check out this website if you havent already it's excellent
http://nabataea.net/ehistory.html
I do have a feeliing they've been suggested and rejected, but it would be an interesting rival to Saba in a rather large gap. We do however, need a eastern european faction, because there is a ruly HUGE gap there.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
hmm will Nabataea be in EBII?
Yes no, maybe. I don't know. Can you repeat the question...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkkiller
are the Boii gonna get put in? with 4 eleutheroi provinces representing them already it seems as if they'd have a nice start at 272...
4 Boii starting regions? Which are these if I may ask? If the Boii do appear as an faction in EB2 (quite likely if you ask me) I´d say that they´d start with Mrogbonna. At least I think that´s the region I´m thinking of. I´m sure they don´t have 4 different regions to start with.
I remember reading a while back that they controlled Pannonia in addition to Mrogbonna during this time, so they probably have both*don't quote me on this*. The other nearby cities with Satres/othersupergenerals guarding them would probably disappear, since the Boii would full fill their purpose.
As for my picks, mine are basically the repeated favorites, even if some won't be getting in *Boii, Galatians, Bosphorians, Belgae, Celtiberians, Massalia, Crimean Scythians, a Goidili tribe*Erains?*, yes I like the barbarians, most good 'civilized' states are already in.* And before someone says the Scythians and Goidili most likely won't be in, I know I did actually read the whole 26 pages.
im all for the barbarians!!!! The more the merrier!!!!!:2thumbsup: a bit of a celtophile myself hehehe!!!!
I enjoy all the barbarian factions the most!!!!!!!!!:beam:
I would have to ask for the boii of course I'm gonna say Galatians but I am a hundred percent sure they are not going to be in it. The celtic kingdom of Tylis (cant remember if that was the trocmi or not) 4 the belgae 5 another iberian tribe like the Editani 6 atropatene 7 Kingdom of Cimmerian Bosphoros 8 another german tribe to flesh out the area 9 a numidian tribe (it will just get steam rolled by carthage though) 10 Palmyra or (Tadmor) it was independent from the seleucid empire.
Im not sure it deserves a slot but the city state has always interested me!!!!
Will be in:
1. Pergamon
Almost sure to be in:
2. Celtiberia
3. Numidia
4. The Belgae
5. The Boii
Will probably be in:
6. An Illyrian faction (the Breuci?)
7. Scythia
8. The Bosphoran Kingdom
Might be in:
9. Syracuse
10. Kyrene
11. Atropatene
12. Gandhara
13. Bithynia (hopefully not, as Asia Minor is too crowded already)
14. Cappadocia (as above)
15. Another Germanic faction (the Bastarnae?)
I guess Kyrene and Atropatene will be chosen. I base this list on the major empty spaces on the EB map.
I think someone from the team said that Kyrene wouldn't make it. I could be mistaken, though...
But, yeah, I'd guess celtiberians, numidians and belgae are rather safe bets. Boii as well.
We will see in due time...
One (or two) numidian factions is I believe almost certain, given that Numidia was probably the faction closest to being included in EB1. They´ve probably just ain´t got enough work done of them to make a Stele.
I don't think two Numidian factions, or a Numidian and a Mauri faction are a good idea. It's going to be hard enough for one such faction not to get clobbered by Carthage.
I wonder what the Numidian heavy units are going to be, if there are going to be any at all, apart from mercs.
Just read the thread again and I see that Illyria, Syracuse and Kyrene will most likely not make it in. Pity about the latter two, both are between rocks and hard places and would therefore be fun to play. Illyria would only get in the much-needed way for Dacia, fair enough.
Some sort of an Alpine faction, like the Noricii or the Helvetii...
Personally I'd love to hear what factions, except Pergamon, have been decided on thus far; I'm not too big on surprises and wouldn't complain even if I didn't like some of the choices.
Well, historically, the Numidians weren't united, at least not until under Massinissa and those guys, so they might be more accurately depicted by two factions, such as one Numidian and one Mauretanian (or two Numidian). In fact, the various Numidian tribes often fought eachother , for example the enemies Syphax and Massinissa, where Massinisa first joined the Carthaginians, and then switched sides to the Romans, prompting Syphax to ally himself with the Carthaginians, after first having been neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visitor13
Another example might be the Jugurthine wars, when the Numidians and Mauretanians first were allies, but the Mauretanians betrayed the Numidians to the Romans.
Given that Carthage will be occupied on other fronts as well, such as Iberia, I think that two factions could actually have a chance of establishing a powerful kingdom of their own. The skirmisher-nature of their units might be able to take quite a heavy toll on the slow carthaginian units as well
During the later stages of the EB-timeframe, I think the romans trained some Numidians in heavy infantry tactics, which might be represented by a rerform. They could possibly have some hellenic-style units, inspired by Punic military, though. Otherwise, I believe that they will primarily have light troops... and, of course, elephants!!!:elephant:Quote:
Originally Posted by Visitor13
This supposedly occured in 213 BCE (Livy 24.48). Statorius was hired by Syphax to organise an infantry force (not neccessarily 'heavy' in the manner of Roman forces). It is reported in the 1st century BCE that the Numidians still used this organisation (I believe in Sallust/Caesar). In game, this could perhaps be represented as an event, similar to the Cataphract reforms. Perhaps if the Numidians are allied with Rome against Carthage, they could "hire" Statorius through an event and the reform would take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator
yeah kinda like aQuote:
Originally Posted by Turnus
reform trigger: Numidia (massilya)
must be allied with romans, enemies with carthage
at least year 213 BC
fought 5 battles against Carthaginian Heavy infantry whch were defeats
How many unit slots are filled in EB I? Because if the number is close to the maximum of 520, then I would rather have the same number of factions in EB II. I would rather have the 21 (including Rebels) factions with lots of units than something like 30 factions with little unit variety. I believe a game should have quality, not quantity. If no new factions over the 21 existing can be added, then I think the EB should scrap the Aediu or the Arverni, for just one Gallic faction. Also, please don't add any more Hellenic factions! There is already more than enough to choose from. However, since there is a limit of 520 units, you could technically have 21 factions with a lot of unit variety and then have another 10 that only use the units from the 21 factions. This way you'll have both quality and quantity. The more factions you have, the more historically accurate the game is. After all, there was no such things as the Rebels (in RTW sense) in history. Every territory was owned by one nation or another with a possible exception of a couple of really desolate places, such as deserts, deep forests, and high mountain ranges.
There is a max of 31 factions in EBII. There is a max of 500 units in EBII. All factions in EBI will be in EBII. All this information and more can be gleamed from reading past posts in this thread and also the EBII FAQ, under Important Information.
Foot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Sigh. When will people get this? The EB team can´t just say "lets add a faction there" and "lets not add one there" because it would be cool to have one there and uncool to have one at another place.
Though I am in no way part of the EB team I dare to say that the Gauls will never be represented as a single faction, because that would be grossly unhistorical.
The "rebels" in EB are called Eleutheroi for a reason. It means the Independents, and that is what they are. Independent tribes, cities and people not controlled by the major nations, tribes and people the EB team have decided to represent as a faction. Each and every one of the Eleutheroi regions is independent from the other ones, and the EB team far from wishes to imply that they are all rebels against the "real" factions. Every single tribe, city and people is its own faction, but since the engine limits are what they are it is not possible to represent this through making every single little Gallic tribe or Greek city-state a faction.
Of course, this is just what I have gathered from longtime reading of EB team members posts and statements, and is not official EB stand.
I might be the only one thinking this, but I don't see the need of putting 10 brand new factions in the game :dizzy2:
As I see the current Faction setup for EBI the perfect one, adding new factions should have a clear emphasis on game balancing, Grey death, Yellow death, GREEN death anyone?
Since it already is a shortage of unit slots, this is my thougts on the new factions:
1. making some "tribe" factions, for Spain, Germania and getai. This will certanly balance Sweboz and getai, since these parts of the map are the most desolate. And it wont use a lot of unit slots either. :sweatdrop:
2. Take one faction slot to represent the "Mini-factions" that won't be in the game even after the new slots been filled, exactly like Roma Surrectum. It certanly seems like a great idea of making some of the independent regions more challenging. Can't argue about this one though, I have only played RS for like 30 minutes, since eb made me addicted to historicaly correct... everything :laugh4:
3. I know this idea have been bashed by the team many times before, but stick with me for this one.
With not using all the faction for new factions, you could *gasp* use a couple of slots for shadow factions representing schisms and rebellions, for the romans seleucids and Ptolemies.
(please don't kill me)
Just my thoughts, and thanks eb team for making this mod. :beam:
You are of course entitled to your opinion, so I will certainly not bash your ideas, however, I'm going to make a short counter-argument. Mind you, though, that this is just my personal opinion, as I am by no means an EB-member...
EB is all about historical accuracy, and just like the fact that the game might be somewhat imbalanced, the real world was never "balanced", in any way. There were huge, mighty empires, and small, insignificant kingdoms and tribes. None the less, they did all exist, and they all affected the world in one way or another. If they were left out, or replaced by some generic faction in an area that just seemed like it needed a faction, not only would the variety that new and realistic factions give to the game be lost, but the whole concept of recreating a world that, as much as possible, resembles the way the world actually looked, would be ruined. The additional factions will serve to more accurately portray the world, as it appeared in 272 b.C, which will be more vivid and lifelike, if there are actually real factions controlling their respective parts of the map, and not just generic "tribes" added in for game balance. Indeed, the limitations of the game engine makes it impossible to portray the world exactly as it was, given that there are an infinite amount of exogenous factors that impact the world, and that cannot be accurately recreated, but I feel that 30 factions, on the campaign map will give a much more enjoyable, and realistic, gaming experience.
And as always, there is the old saying: The more, the merrier!
I read all this huge thread (again) and I repeat, please:
1-. Think about the possibility of another germanic faction.
2-. And two celtic factions more would be great: Belgae and Boii. But most important, remove the Aedui from Mediolanum.
3-. Don't forget the numidian and some new faction in Iberia.
I am no expert on this matter, but weren´t the Insubres and such in Insubramog allied to the Aedui? If you have any evidence why the Aedui Confederation should not be in control of Mediolanum please state so, in order that I not be left with the false impression that you are simply stating a wish from gameplay perspective, without taking the historical reality into consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
Well, if you don't want to remove them at least put some type IV or III gov. building (or whatever) there but the Aedui (as all barbarian factions) were not so strong and cohesive than in the game.
When Romans conquered the land of the insubres I don't believe that half of Gaul crossed the Alps to fight for their distant brothers.
The division of the celts were at least their doom. If they could be unite now we speak celtic languages not romanic or germanic ones.
The unity of Gaul was only possible (and not complete) in Vergingetorix time and as an desperate reaction against roman conquest, not in 272 BC.
I believe that the starting position of Aedui and Arverni are a bit overpowered, the Casse and the Sweboz have starting positions more accurate to what the barbarian tribes were.
Right. I mean you're right. How could a barbaric race who couldn't even live in cities (losers) create a government system that allowed the autonomous control of several tribes under one larger tribal confederation. They are all just a bunch of Liberals (in the American sense) and wasters pulling in different directions and never looking out for the community. Only the holy civilisations of Greece and Rome were able to govern large areas.
Or wait, perhaps the idea that barbarians are uncivilised, unable to perform even the simplest administrative duty, is complete crap. Indeed one might even further be able to entertain the prospect that large confederations of tribes sharing a common language (if not dialect) and culture might actually be a rather strong form of government, allowing for a certain level of autonomy, but also centralised authority when the time is required. A sort of warrior democracy, where elected officials, answerable to their people, vote on higher matters in an Aedui council, or something.
But no, they were simple farm people. I mean yes, they could create the most influential form of armour in human history so far (chain-mail), an intricate and highly complicated design of rings, but they couldn't form a government capable of uniting large swathes of the gallic population, that would be just beyond them.
Right?
Foot
:laugh4: You've made my day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Foot, everyone knows that before the Romans there was no such thing as complex democratic cultured civilisations, capable of organising a capable mobile military force, personal hygeine and codifying an established legal system.
Haven't you ever played Rome: Total War?
You just got trampled by da FOOT :whip:
Indeed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I think that the reason people tend to se Gauls as somehow "inferior" to the Romans, Greeks etc. is that the word "tribe" conjures up an image of savagery and disunity, and as the opposite of what we define as civilization. Whereas the civilization symbolizes unity, organization and sophistication, the tribes symbolize disunity, isolation and barbarism. This despite that the tribe is just another form of society, no less complex and ambitious than any other.
Thus, we tend to see the Gauls as a simple and unsophisticated people, without any form of organized society, while the Greeks of the same time are seen as a glorious example of civilization and sophistication. However, Greece in this era presents an equally disparate group of leauges and city-states, just as diverse and prone to infighting as the Gallic tribes. Yet, one is seen as a civilization, the other as a disunited group of tribes.
One of the great things about EB is that it has managed to wash off that barbarian "stamp" that the Gauls have carried, invented by ancient Greek and Roman authors, and reinforced by popular culture of our time in movies and games, and revealed to people the true coutenance of this facinating culture.
Hopefully, it will help people see the Celts, not as bearded savages clothed in animal hides, hitting each other over the head with clubs, but as the vibrant and complex civilization they really were.
You guys are correct that the Aedui were sophisticated, but i think he was alluding to the fact that the Aedui had worse things to worry about at the time (*cough*Arverni*cough*) so They wouldn't have marched huge armies across the Alps to defend Medio.... happened to me a couple times in my first couple Roman campaigns, but oddly, not my current one.
As has been mentioned previously, the government system in EBI was not perfect, it is difficult to represent the subtleties of each individual state with regards its position in the faction as a whole. This will be improved in EBII. If you aren't happy about the gov in Medio then you can change it or even remove the province, but Medio was certainly part of the Aedui confederacy during this timeperiod, and whether the Aedui could or could not support it with troops is independent of this fact.
The UK, before WWII, maintained a treaty with Poland regardless of the fact that there was no plausible way it could deploy troops in fulfillment of the treaty if Poland was invaded. The treaty existed even still.
Foot
Long live the celts!!!!!! I can see both sides of the debate but Foot is right!!!!! It is hard to represent things as they actually were within the limits of the engine!!!
My 2 cents/pence/Euro-thingies:
If you're adding 10 factions, I'd rather see the map creep a bit to the east and bring in Indian and western Chinese factions than cramming a bunch of borderline-meaningless city-states to the game. I like the EB1.1 method of bulking up particular cities to reflect the independent city-state concept.
I'm not sure "Egypt"/yellow needs to be countered as much as rebalanced. I'm in my first EB campaign and they are literally sprinting through AS.
I like the idea of Meroe/Kush even if they get run over.
Numidia and Boii are obvious, I think.
We can't enlarge the map anymore than it currently is. This is because of the max number of settlements is 199 which we reached with the EBI map. Additionally the number of unit slots the number of culture slots the number of ... well you get the picture. The scope of what we can mod becomes more and more limited the further we extend the map.
Besides, I would hate it if the map extended so far, the game would lose focus and in an effort to improve scope we would lose depth.
Foot
Understood -- if we all had supercomputers and the perfect gaming platform, we could play as native Americans, tribal Africans, Eskimos, kangaroos, dolphins, microbes, air, light...Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I'm sure the team will make the right decisions.
I think you're trying to describe Spore there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGlobalizer
Actually, we would still be waiting for EBII to come out in year 2050.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGlobalizer
They are actually a mixed blessing the hard codes they are. At least in the quantity types as there are certain limits to what EB can be and therefore it might some day be ready.
It would indeed be grossly unhistorical, but then again, just about every barbarian faction was split between numerous tribes. Sweboz, Gauls, Iberians, Britons were all composed of different tribes and yet in EB, due to the faction limit, most of them are represented as one tribe.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
The Sweboz were one tribe (though their province was inhabited by others as well). The Aedui and the Arverni were tribal confederations that lasted throughout our timeperiod. The Lusotannan were a single tribe, as was the Casse (based upon the Catevelluni). We've chosen tribes as factions, not some vanilla-esque Gallic faction, that was indeed ahistorical. The faction limit is not our problem (though it is still of course a problem). The problem is the game mechanics does not allow us to represent the many tribes that would have co-existed in a province together (and so province limit is a problem). It also does not allow us to represent, within a faction, the different tribes that still often acted independently (so that as the Sweboz expand it is not actually the Sweboz tribe that expand but rather their political and military influence over neighbouring tribes). However we do the best we can and add traits and ancillaries (and in EBII buildings) that allow the player to role-play the political situation that the game just does not allow for.
However to say that the tribal factions themselves in EBI are unhistorical is a gross misrepresentation of what they are and the work we've put into them.
Foot
Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?