New factions?

I play for Romans on Hard/Hard and I have really big problems with Swebos. They press me very hard in northern Ilyria. I am goig to mad of them and crowds of their field and mercenary armies. I think that new German faction could balance the force on the north and slow down their expansion. It could be the same as balance between Aeudi and Arverni.

I mean it would be good to renew Numidia for possibility of Roman diplomatic war with Karthastim.

Interesting would be united tribes of Ilyria or if not, than more mercenary Ilyria units for Epirus kingdom.

It would be nice to see Pergamon and Syracuse kingdoms on the strategic map but I think it is not necessary to be playable.

Do you think that it is possible to place in Iberian peninsula town of Saguntum? Because massacre in this town of Hannibal's troop was a "cause" for second Punic War.

Saguntum was also known by the native name of 'Arse'. Saguntum is the Roman name for the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

And i really don't need a Latin translation on how Suebi = swezboz, a couple people have pointed out the fact that they are one in the same and that really is good enough to me, i'm sure you meant all the best when typing it and i don't mean to come across as an ass but to me it seems condescending and while i am not a scholar with a degree in ancient history i am not new to it either, i just don't see the Suebi refered to as the Swezboz outside of EB.

---

A bit of etymology is always interesting. If not for you then for someone else.

Well, let me add there's a distinct fluctuation between u - v - and w. Hence the Romans call the Sw- bit Su-. Now where would Swabia come from? ~;)

I would like to see the Illyrians, Pergamon, the Helveti, the Boi or maybe even the kingdom of kappadocia. The belgi, described by Ceaser as the greatest in courage and military skills off all the celts will be a wellcome addition to EB.

Cheers.

Well, at least one of them is already covered. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

I hate to argue with you but it seems that a lot of authors seem to disagree about the Suebi not being Germanic

---

are you serious about thinking the Teutons were Germanic but the Suebi were not?! What are the Suebi then (Celtic? Thracian? Cimmerian?) in your theory which so many scholars disagree over? I'm quite fascinated because I've NEVER heard of this

It's funny that in my country some of the germanic settlers brought here by the Hungarians (~13-14th century I think) are called Svabi pronounced roughly as Schwabi (I really can't make it sound like in English). It's really similar in a way to Sweboz and clearly has something in common with Suebi.

Well Latin V is both W and U, varying translations cause spelling to get screwed up, things get confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

are you serious about thinking the Teutons were Germanic but the Suebi were not?! What are the Suebi then (Celtic? Thracian? Cimmerian?) in your theory which so many scholars disagree over? I'm quite fascinated because I've NEVER heard of this

---

I suspect the two of you have miscommunicated. As an aside I also throw my lot in favor of the migration Teutons being protogermanic, the Cimbri are a different and more complex matter.

Getting back on track I would absolutely LOVE to see an eastern Baltic faction if at all supportable.

And depending on V's position in a word matters on how it is pronounced.

Regarding pronounciation, how can some scholars say that our people (Romanians) have close to nothing in common with the Romans when I can understand the Italian language on TV and I can communicate with an Italian person without proper knowledge of the language just because of the many similar words in our languages. I've read about so many people (historians) judging our Latin heritage and it's really a bummer that the gypsies call themselves Rroma (so similar to Romanians) and the majority of EU and especially the people in UK think that we are all gypsies, (perhaps offtopic but just wanted to get this of my chest), I really think most people here know better and I'm not a racist but the gypsies have really given us Romanians a bad reputation throughout Europe (that's the thanks we get for allowing them to settle in our lands)

you know I think the Kurds are strikingly similar in situation to the Romani... interesting though, don't worry Redmeth, I think of Vlad the Impaler ~:) that's right, kill those greedy merchants

Yeah Vlad, at least he helped Bram Stoker achieve immortality... He loved the Turks so much (grew up as a hostage in Istanbul). He would be a corruption-stopper it possible in the M2TW, there's a tale about how honest merchants could leave a bag full of gold on the edge of a fountain and later could come back and retrieve it because the punishment for theft was impaling, not really PC but effective I guess.

I think an eastern european and indian faction would be very nice. Nubians would be fun too. Maybe shake things up for carthage. I would also like to see alot more flavor for other factions like those awesome ancient sites on the map. :yes:

Quote:

---

Regarding pronounciation, how can some scholars say that our people (Romanians) have close to nothing in common with the Romans when I can understand the Italian language on TV and I can communicate with an Italian person without proper knowledge of the language just because of the many similar words in our languages. I've read about so many people (historians) judging our Latin heritage and it's really a bummer that the gypsies call themselves Rroma (so similar to Romanians) and the majority of EU and especially the people in UK think that we are all gypsies, (perhaps offtopic but just wanted to get this of my chest), I really think most people here know better and I'm not a racist but the gypsies have really given us Romanians a bad reputation throughout Europe (that's the thanks we get for allowing them to settle in our lands)

---

Well Romanians speak one of the 5 true children languages of latin, just the same way i can understand some spanish, french, and italian by knowing portuguese. :2thumbsup: Which helps so much with my classics studies!

Plus the Roma people come from india and its not what they call themselves, its what they are called. Not trying to be mean, i swear! :sweatdrop:


.. oh the Romani, asways getting a bad rep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

As far as the faction wishlist goes:
Remember that this game is set in 272BC and not Caesar's time. Some factions that Caesar fought or mentioned were not prominent in 272BC.

I wish I could comment on EB2 faction selection. Some guesses here are already set as future factions. But the new faction list is big surprise and top secret.

I would like to see the "Free Peoples" concept from Roma Surrectum used in EB, as explained in this post http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=70732.

It is a faction that is intermixed with the existing slave faction territories. It has the effect of simulating a lot of small factions much better then the rather supine slave faction.

I think it would bring a welcome freshness to EB Campaign progression. Currently the "rebel" regions are mere resources waiting for a faction to come and capture them. With the Free Peoples - the non-faction areas would have some life because the Free Peoples would be in constant conflict with the slave faction, and it would be strong enough to give any normal faction a run for its money without either side being wiped out.

The price for this mechanism is for one of the existing factions to become unplayable - but it could still be represented as a regional part of the Free Peoples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlp071

Well in theory M2TW game engine allows 52 factions, but only 26 can be playable.If you go with only 31 faction than all are playable.

---

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.

If any new hellenistic faction was to be added, I'd hope it to be the Bosporan Kingdom. Interesting and challenging location, nice combination of available units and a valuable trading partner (or rival) for the other factions that have access to the Black Sea.

A faction in the North Africa or along the Nile would be much needed spice to that part of the map, but may not be reasonable. Something is definetly needed in Central Europe to keep the Sweboz from swelling too much and the Romani from going north early. Perhaps the Boii would do the trick as has been suggested.

Beyond that, maybe add factions to British islands and the Iberian peninsula? Additional factions in the east and on the steppes wouldn't hurt either.

Enough with the "Barbarian" factions, i say the Seres in the east, you could even use Sulek as their home city, it would work i say and as far as i remeber it would be historically accurate as the bactrians did have trading relations with them, so did the parthians, hell even the romans chatted to them later on.

there are many things pronounced like "schwabi", e.g. the font schwabach... and perhaps connected with suebi/sweboz - the land schwabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwabia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

are you serious about thinking the Teutons were Germanic but the Suebi were not?! What are the Suebi then (Celtic? Thracian? Cimmerian?) in your theory which so many scholars disagree over? I'm quite fascinated because I've NEVER heard of this

---

Erm read that again, i said that all the scholars i've come across believe the Suebi to be a Germanic tribe. I'll try to type that our better next time to avoid confusion for those whose first language isn't English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

Erm read that again, i said that all the scholars i've come across believe the Suebi to be a Germanic tribe. I'll try to type that our better next time to avoid confusion for those whose first language isn't English.

---

How condescending are you!?

Seriously dude, your original sentence was damn complicated to read, I certainly couldn't understand it. Perhaps you should try to explain yourself better, instead of doing the above and insulting people because they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying.

Oh, and also, blitz's explanation of Suebi=Sweboz was useful and to be expected. If someone asks a question we generally give an answer and an explanation. You don't like it, don't post. It certainly isn't condescending to post an explanation along with the answer.

Foot

I still think it would be great to add an Indian faction.

A justification is that in the campaign conquering India doesn't seem to be a stupendous feat for either Selukeia or Baktria. I mean, come on!All I need to do is deploy 2 levy phalangites at the gates and poke 000s of lousy naked Indians to death! If historically that is all I need to do, then Alexandros with his full arsenal of veteran Agyraspidai and Hetairoi would have expanded all the way to Indonesia and China!

Speaking about Indians, shouldn't there be elite units such as cataphracts and Ksatria warriors?What, don't tell me that the Indians have even less supply of iron than the Swebos! I have seen pictures of Indians in chain mail armor, riding horses clad in cataphract armor (correct me if I am wrong here).

If the EB team couldn't add more Indian provinces, then fine. They can just set Patala/Taksashila as the capital of Maurya Kingdome (or whatever else Indian kingdom). Then they can justify that the other Indian kingdoms to the east gave too high a resistance to capture.

@Foot and The Internet

I can't say this in words so I'll resort to smilies:

:scastle:


:stop:


~:grouphug:

...and the hippie is satisfied :hippie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim_Ghost

I still think it would be great to add an Indian faction.

A justification is that in the campaign conquering India doesn't seem to be a stupendous feat for either Selukeia or Baktria. I mean, come on!All I need to do is deploy 2 levy phalangites at the gates and poke 000s of lousy naked Indians to death! If historically that is all I need to do, then Alexandros with his full arsenal of veteran Agyraspidai and Hetairoi would have expanded all the way to Indonesia and China!

Speaking about Indians, shouldn't there be elite units such as cataphracts and Ksatria warriors?What, don't tell me that the Indians have even less supply of iron than the Swebos! I have seen pictures of Indians in chain mail armor, riding horses clad in cataphract armor (correct me if I am wrong here).

If the EB team couldn't add more Indian provinces, then fine. They can just set Patala/Taksashila as the capital of Maurya Kingdome (or whatever else Indian kingdom). Then they can justify that the other Indian kingdoms to the east gave too high a resistance to capture.

---

Well firstly, in our campaign you cannot conquer India, we don't have India on the map. We certainly won't be expanding our map to include India, so we certainly won't be including the Mauryan Kingdom (the idea of having their capital in an unhistorical location is certainly not EBs style).

However, we certainly want to do something in that area so whilst it won't be an empire, it will certainly expand the importance of that area.

Foot

Don't you have part of india on the map.

A very, very small portion. If we were to expand, it would be completely unrepresentative of the subcontinent though due to how densely populated it was. You could probably have 15-20 cities in India alone, easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Don't you have part of india on the map.

---

Its hardly India. 3 border provinces, the conquest of which would hardly be considered a major dent in any Indian Empire.

Foot