New factions?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cartaphilus

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

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

---

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

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

how about samurai japan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani

how about samurai japan?

---

...?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Sweboz, Gauls, Iberians, Britons

---

What the?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bosphorean Greeks - Interesting position and culture.

Pergamon - well duh.

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

Quite alot of Celts, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

This gives me an idea!

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

With Kingdoms promising multiple campaigns, you could just have:

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

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

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

---

I think it's cool

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cartaphilus

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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



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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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

---

More than you, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cartaphilus

More than you, indeed.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methuselah

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

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


...?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foot

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani

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

---

Watch out, for he may be a Ferrous Cranus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Watch out, for he may be a Ferrous Cranus.

---

Out freeking standing link!

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

the Mauryan Empire the Zhou China

Kush or even something Central African.

---

Did you try to read the thread? At all?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

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

---

:wall:





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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iberius Victor

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Woooooow dude I was joking, calm down.

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

Already in:
Pergamon (no way!)

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

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

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

yeah, right:
Nubia
Ethiopia
any far eastern faction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

I couldn't agree with you more :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admetos

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

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



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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

---

Thanks Foot, it sure did.:yes:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admetos

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

---

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

Yep, that's our AtB map!

Factions hope they include in eb 2

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

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

Foot

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

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

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

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

Foot

---

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

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

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

Foot

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

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

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

---

~:eek: *faints*
No way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

Foot

---

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

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

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

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

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

---

i dont want to be a revealing person but i think that you just said Syracuse will be the next preview hahaha xD

..no, he didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

Foot

---

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

..no, he didn't.

---

Muahahahah yes he did xD

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

Foot

Quote:

---

Muahahahah yes he did xD

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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

---

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

the search function works great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So does reading the last page :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddy_purpus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

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

Foot

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jo the Greek

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

---

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

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

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