Faction List for EB2?

Did anybody ask for an emerging faction? That the Cimbri and Teutones first appeared in 113 doesn't mean that they didn't exist before.

Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they?

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Did anybody ask for an emerging faction? That the Cimbri and Teutones first appeared in 113 doesn't mean that they didn't exist before.

Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they?

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.

---

Couldn't have said it better my self.

Good job putting words into other people's mouths. Since when has anyone claimed that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writings? Far as the EB team has said they are heavily reliant on archeological evidence for the Germanics, and that the evidence points to them as being more centralised than the other options and hence more useful as a faction in a TW game. They represent factions as they were at the start, namely 272; if the various options weren't worth representing at that date, they aren't worth including, which is why the Yuezhi were dropped.

Besides, you want Skandza? RTR 7.0 will have them. They've got their reasons, EB has theirs.

My thoughts exactly. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Since when has anyone claimed that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writings?

---

I'm not saying that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myself in previous post

Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they[question mark]

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myself again

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

I'm not saying that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writing.

---

Then I suggest you rephrase your reasoning, because the section quoted was not that clear.

I can see where some of the confusion comes from. Tellos Athenaios implied that because their mention occurs around 104 bc they would have to be an emerging faction; clearly their history goes back further than that, so that wouldn't be a valid reason. I think MarcusAureliusAntoninus put it more clearly: what's being argued against by both is including people such as the Cimbri and Teutones on the basis of a moment many years after 272 in which a major action brings them into the attention of Greek/Roman authors, which is what was being implied by SouthernTrendKill and in reaction to whom both were writing. The EB team is not stating that the Cimbri and Teutones didn't have a history before their encounters with the Romans, but are arguing against their inclusion on the basis of achievements of the 2nd century bc.

Like the other factions in a situation such as that of the Sweboz at the time, such as mainly the other 'barbarian' factions, new factions need archeological remains to form the basis of evidence for the faction in 272 bc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.

---

The last highlighted line is like preaching to the converted. That's the whole basis of EB in a nutshell. It also shows that the reasons the EB team has for not including such factions as the Cimbri and Teutones (which has not actually even been explicitely stated will be the case) you concur with in the first highlighted line aren't fully understood. They aren't saying they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded: they are saying that the reasons given for their inclusion by for instance SouthernTrendKill aren't enough to warrant inclusion, because those reasons imply they would have to be emerging factions because the first time those peoples had an relevance is midway through the campaign game. That's where the idea that the Cimbri and Teutones would have to be an emerging faction came from, not from EB team members.

I must note that the EB team has not gone further than showing why the reasons given here by fans aren't enough to warrant including certain discussed factions. That does not mean they aren't candidates, since that does not mean stronger evidence in favour doesn't exist or isn't being discussed in the EB development area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Then I suggest you rephrase your reasoning, because the section quoted was not that clear.

[...]

The last highlighted line is like preaching to the converted. That's the whole basis of EB in a nutshell.

---

I know, and I think I misunderstood Tellos Athenaios statement about emerging factions. I try to be more clearly in my statements next time, I'm sorry for the confusion.~:0

No problem. I probably overreacted a little, certainly when considering that English isn't your native language (I think?). It can certainly make things awkward when everything is text based here.

Well, I can say that there will be more than one faction in Germania. :2thumbsup: But since we can't put them all in, we have to decide which ones are most powerful and could have been expansionistic in 272BC.

Also, it isn't too good to make a faction with their 'back to the wall'. So it doesn't make since to add a Scandinavian faction. They would have been interested in stuff off the map, as well as on the map. Same reasoning behind a Nubian faction or an Indian faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Well, I can say that there will be more than one faction in Germania. :2thumbsup: But since we can't put them all in, we have to decide which ones are most powerful and could have been expansionistic in 272BC.

Also, it isn't too good to make a faction with their 'back to the wall'. So it doesn't make since to add a Scandinavian faction. They would have been interested in stuff off the map, as well as on the map. Same reasoning behind a Nubian faction or an Indian faction.

---

Having a nation against a wall would then require them to fight away from there homeland to expand. The Scandinavians tribes fought romans and Germans for land and regional domination, but just like Germans, Gaul, and Dacia other barbarian etc..., skirmishes, and petty tribal conflicts were of the result.

But a nation with a "back to the wall" has a flank they never have to protect, even during the late game. With a "back to the wall" they can allocate troops in a historically inauthentic fashion, i.e. completely ignore protection for that border of their territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill

Having a nation against a wall would then require them to fight away from there homeland to expand. The Scandinavians tribes fought romans and Germans for land and regional domination, but just like Germans, Gaul, and Dacia other barbarian etc..., skirmishes, and petty tribal conflicts were of the result.

---

Thats a good point. Requiring them to move their front to their southern front. Also Will make the swebos move their front to the north.

Fearing I didn't quite elucidate my point: It is an unfair advantage from a gameplay perspective and it is unrealistic from a historical perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

I would like to see the ancient vah-jynas....they were very prominent near the bush.

---

Despite being a bunch of pussies, they've controlled the world forever!
(Yes, quite the Greg-like pun, I feel filthy)

Ethiopia would be a fun faction and add lots of variety!
An Irish faction... never. Not at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rundownloser

But a nation with a "back to the wall" has a flank they never have to protect, even during the late game. With a "back to the wall" they can allocate troops in a historically inauthentic fashion, i.e. completely ignore protection for that border of their territory.

---

True - it would be like using the corner in a battlefield, except on the campaign map (and unintentionally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

An Irish faction... never. Not at this time.

---

Well it would be nice to give the Casse someone to fight, and not let them build forces up in Britain at their own pace and then D-Day Aedui + Arverni, taking out half of France in one go (well, it's what I do :beam:).

Italian:
Rome

Hellenistic:
Epirote Kingdom
Aetolian League
Achaen League
Makedonia
Ptolemaic Empire
Seleucid Kingdom
Baktria
Bosporos

African:
Carthage
Numidia
Aksumite Kingdom

Barbarian:
Celtiiberians (Spanish)
Lusitanians (Spanish)
Audui (Gallic)
Arverni (Gallic)
Sweboz (Germanic)
Chatti (Germanic)
Frissii (Holland region)
Casse (British)
Getae (Dacian)
Ardiaei (Illyrian)

Nomadic:
Sarmations
Sakae

Eastern:
Nabatea
Sabae
Pontus
Armenia
Parthia
Persian Rebels (Emerges for Seleucids or Parthians)

Quote:

---

Well it would be nice to give the Casse someone to fight, and not let them build forces up in Britain at their own pace and then D-Day Aedui + Arverni, taking out half of France in one go (well, it's what I do ).

---

Something the AI does too (in EB1 anyway) There needs to be some competition there, either in the form of another British Isles faction (may as well be the Erainn, if the comments in the other thread about the scope of their activities are accepted) or having something like the Belgae in Gaul. Personally I'd like both, but the latter if I had to choose.

Antagonist

To be honest I would prefer fewer new factions and more units for the factions. But I was not asked about it.:laugh4:

My new factions would be:

1. Belgae and/or

2. Boii

Good to restrain the Sweboz + there is some place left in middle Europe. No new Germanic faction cause I have already difficulties with one mighty Germanic tribe league at that early time. Of course it is a bit of a waste not to use the existing Germanic units for another contender but...

3. Masaesulii
A Numidian faction to keep the Carthaginians busy from the beginning. Although I don't like the appearance of the actual Numidian units in EB entirely it would be fun to play the skirmisher style. Units could also be used by the Carthaginians. A bit critical: I would never have thought of Numidia as a potential world ruler, esp. at this early date. But this is true for some other factions too.

4. "Irish"
Of course not the Irish but one of the tribes who lived in later Ireland. Nice units and a counter to the Casse.

5. Bosphorian Kingdom
Long lasting, nice units possibly and in a room able to cope with a new faction

6. Massilia or Syracuse
I would rather like to have Rhodes as a faction, similar to Venice in M2TW. Ok, the Rhodians unlike Venice formed no empire, but were a very important trade nation and played some part in the Epigone wars, f.e. in the naval defeat of Philipp V. at Chios 201. But I read that KH will not be divided, so I would opt for Massilia (or Syracuse) for trade factions. Massilia could be defended very easily. With the M2TW merchant wars some new playing experience could be within.


Hmmm, my ideas left me...:sweatdrop:
Perhaps:
- Meroe/Ethiopia: already dismissed, I see the reasons but it hurts
- Cyrene: a lot of free room in Africa?
- Galatians and/or Pergamon: both useful as competitors for Asia Minor? Both were not entirely in the place in 272 however (but the same for Baktria) and easily crushed by the other powers, or not?
- Atlantis: there are rumours of a mighty empire just in the middle of the sea in the west: interesting units with laser weapons and flying devices

No:clown: :thumbsdown: :
Germanic tribe in today Germany: reason see above
Bastarnae: please no fantasy units (not much known about them, or not?)
Illyria: no potential strong candidate (but what about the Germanic tribes?...öhm) and I need room for my Epiros campaigns

I really want to see Illyria included!

some good points Geala. As you noted, the Bastarnoz seem a rather poor choice because of the low level of archaeological evidence needed to reconstruct them. At the moment, we're trying hard enough just to put together the information for a single Bastarnoz unit--I'd rather not imagine trying to reconstruct the whole faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

Well it would be nice to give the Casse someone to fight, and not let them build forces up in Britain at their own pace and then D-Day Aedui + Arverni, taking out half of France in one go (well, it's what I do :beam:).

---

What about having a gallic , celtic faction instead of an "irish". But still in Britain, to give the Casse a good fight about the british isles.

Anthony mentioned the Erain on page 1, a Celtic people in today Ireland becoming later the Goidils. I find that fascinating. And is it not a good reason for a big reform? Just another British Celtic faction would be not so interesting for me.

Rebel Faction

1 Roman Rebel Faction
2 Ptolemaic Rebel Faction (Hellenistic)
3 Seleucid Rebel Faction (Hellenistic)
4 Roxolani Rebel Faction

New Faction

5 Illyria
6 Bosphoran Kingdom
7 Pergamon
8 Numidians
9 Thracian

Emerging Faction

10 Yuezhi

I would like to see another African faction, preferably kingdom of Meroe or Aksum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tominokar

Italian:
Rome

Hellenistic:
Epirote Kingdom
Aetolian League
Achaen League
Makedonia
Ptolemaic Empire
Seleucid Kingdom
Baktria
Bosporos

African:
Carthage
Numidia
Aksumite Kingdom

Barbarian:
Celtiiberians (Spanish)
Lusitanians (Spanish)
Audui (Gallic)
Arverni (Gallic)
Sweboz (Germanic)
Chatti (Germanic)
Frissii (Holland region)
Casse (British)
Getae (Dacian)
Ardiaei (Illyrian)

Nomadic:
Sarmations
Sakae

Eastern:
Nabatea
Sabae
Pontus
Armenia
Parthia
Persian Rebels (Emerges for Seleucids or Parthians)

---

That list is right on IMO, except for two things.

1. Take out Persian Rebels, and add the Attalids' Pergamon.
2. Take out Nabatea, and add the Kingdom of Kyrene.

Just my two cents. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

That list is right on IMO, except for two things.

1. Take out Persian Rebels, and add the Attalids' Pergamon.
2. Take out Nabatea, and add the Kingdom of Kyrene.

Just my two cents. :2thumbsup:

---

I agree with Pergamon actually, but not sure why you would prefer Kyrene to Nabatea- it would probably be my next choice if there was a 31st faction slot though :yes: But Nabatea would do a lot more to challenge both the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

What kind of historical research has been done on the Nabateans? I wasn't aware that they were important enough to be their own faction. Honestly, Nabatea would be cool. I'm just not familiar with any of their history. They would probably be quite similiar to the Sab'yn, yes. Oh well, as long as Pergamon gets thrown in their somewhere, I'll be happy. I really have no idea why that faction seems so appealing, it just does.

Yeah, Pergamon has to be in there as it was a noticeable check to Seleucid power in Asia Minor. I also think that Galatia would be a great addition (along with Pergamon and the Bosporan Kingdom) that would really spice up the area around the Black Sea, which at the moment I honestly believe is a little sparse at present.

P.S. I am allowed to be needlessly redundant and repeats things, reiterating things as I deem necessary, which is within my rights.:laugh4:

is ther not a real duuplicity between this thread and the other "factions" thread"

If there were to be a syracuse faction ( i think it would be very poular as most eb fans are veteran now and would love the challenge!),

what would be there unique units?

I am imagining they would have a fairly similar rostar to the KH?