I would like to echo the call for a Cyrene faction. I think they would be very fun to play. Perhaps they would look like a mix of Koinon Hellenon, Egypt, Carthage, and Numidia.
TM
Printable View
I would like to echo the call for a Cyrene faction. I think they would be very fun to play. Perhaps they would look like a mix of Koinon Hellenon, Egypt, Carthage, and Numidia.
TM
I don't know. They'd have to be an emerging faction and the party structure is impossible to represent given the RTW family system. Plus I predict the forum will be flooded with a "red tide" of communists complaining that the faction isn't accurately represented. The EB team probably shouldn't touch this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailfertes
:clown:
We could always spawn invasions and sometimes raides by the Dal Raidans.
i would think it would be a faction that would last for maybe the entire campaign or have some major impact on history
i would hope they would add a rebel romanii faction
that only appear when scripted (CIVIL WAR)
a Numidian faction would be good, to control cathage expansion
parthia would be good?
i'm not so sure about my eastern empires but does Parthia exist already in EB?
anyways
1. Rebel romanii faction
2. Numidian faction
3. 2nd germanic faction
Parthia exists in EB as the Pahlava.
Dal Riadans wouldn't exist yet by a longshot.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Really? damn...Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I fail to see why the Romans would get a rebel faction over everyone else. It's not like civil wars were uncommon among the empires of the time, in fact being one of the major factors for the rise of Rome. Think about it.
I agree with Sarcasm, in vanilla BI I always found it annoying that if a province rebelled from Romans it would join this super-faction that ranged from Germania to Africa. Some people just want their independance, they don't want to become part of a new Roman Empire.
Thats when the gold, women, and swords come in.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
When you attack the celtiberians [near numantia i believe] currently the script spawns a couple stacks to defend it. so script armies are totally plausible and already working.
I understand this mod is trying to focus on all the other more unique factions but most players seem to have a romani campaign in progress. The civil war system sure didn't work in vanilla but the EB team is amazing and i'm sure with their super-human-beserker-scripting abilities they could make it smooth and enjoyable. It just seems a super complete roman faction would be more important than a unit-limited small, one-city faction who really didn't impact history much.
that's my two-cents.
Thats why we wouldn't choose such a faction. But MTW2 has only given us 10 more factions, and there are a lot of kingdoms and tribes that deserve to be mentioned, who both had an impact and could reasonably be represented in game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swebozbozboz
Of course, we wouldn't mind if a fan or group of fan created a mod for EB2 that got rid of one faction and replaced it with a shadow faction.
Foot
You Know foot, these factions could be hordes, just to have an hounorable mention.
The Dalriata tribe only emerge as notably distinct in the early dark ages. They'd likely first emerge though as one of the early Goidelic tribes of Ireland sometime around or after 200 BC, but they'd not be called Dal Riada, and would likely be of minor consequence. Early Gaelic raids on Britain came from many tribes at once; the proto-Dalriata would likely be the vassals of a stronger tribe at the time. The British kingdom of Gaelic Dal Riada wouldn't emerge for over half a millenium though.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Gotcha. Is that where English got he word "raid" ?
No, 'raid' comes from Middle English. They said the Scots 'rade' upon horseback (not 'rode') when attacking outlying settlements suddenly. From there came connecting 'rading' with sudden attacks. 'Raid' was the Scots spelling for it.
Anthony I was told that the Veneti or Ligurians were a powerful in Cisalpine Gaul during this time. am I misinformed???
Ligurians weren't Celts, but a pre-Celtic people, and the Veneti of Cisalpine Gaul weren't that powerful. I mentioned Ligurians earlier. The powerful Veneti inhabited Armorica (modern Brittany). There were Boii there. None of the them though are really that strong and would probably be destroyed quickly by neighboring Gauls (under the Aedui), or by the Romans.
I meant the Adriatic Veneti. What About the Helvetti? where they powerful
The Helveti at the time were probably dependents of Noricum or the central European Boii (either of whom would probably be decent factions), so wouldn't be viable as an independent faction. It wouldn't be till their migrations that they'd likely be seen as an established, totally independent people.
Ok thanks Anthony. History is my favorite subject and I always like to make sure I have correct information. It's nice to have real historians around. Again thanks Anthony.
Aetolian League
Achaean League
Syracuse
Maybe Pergamos,Massalia
and i don't know for this time period (maybe would be early) Helvetii,Belgae,Jewish rebels?
Politically correct? What do you mean by that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
I second King Agatholes of Syracuse question about you saying EB isn't politically correct. I thought EB was all about Historical Accuracy which is political correctness. They were named Ethiopians by the Greeks, who said they were pious and honorable warriors. They had to have had some type of military presence since they resisted the armies of Rome and Islam, and didn't fall into decline until the 9th or 10th century A.D.. They also were the only African nation besides Liberia that remained independent during the Great Scramble. During WWII, Mussolini had to use gas to conquer Ethiopia and even then he didn't hold it that long since he conquered it in 1936 and it revolted in 1941. So in two-thousand years they were only conquered twice. I must ask what do you mean about Illyria not being united enough? They had there own kingdom and king. That constitutes a faction to me. And didn't the King of Illyria send 20,000 thousand troops to the King of Macedon to defend his kingdom against a Celtic Invasion?
P.S. I am not trying to be rude. These are just facts I have found in Encyclopedias like Brittanica, Encarta, and my local library . I apologize if I offend anyone in any way and thank the people at EB for this wonderful mod.
Wolfman25
Hey Wolfman,
While the Ethiopians may have been good and pious warriors in the eyes of the Greeks, there are two problems. One, the Greeks had a tendency to romanticize people who were a long way off, such that they were either very good or very bad, or a mixture of both. So the Ethiopians are very nice in the Greek view, just a little behind the times. Which relates to point two, which is that the 'Ethiopian' kingdoms, of which there were several in the Hellenistic period, were rather lacking in military technology, such that the existing regional units already in EB would constitute the entire roster.
As for the Illyrians, I'm pretty sure its a single tribe of them, I think the Autaristai, who offer soldiers to Ptolemy Keraunos in 279 to help him against the Galatian armies. Its worth noting that these are a single tribe of pseudo-Illyrians; they were in no sense politically united with the other Illyrian tribes scattered along the Dalmatian coast. There's also a good chance the "20,000" is a heavily exaggerated number. The story comes down from Pausanias, doesn't it? He's not known for understatement, if you know what I mean. Additionally, by the 272 start date, the Autaristai had been further weakened by the Skordiskoi, the Celtic survivors of Brennos' invasion of Greece who settled in lands south of the Danube, lands which formerly been ruled by Autaristai to the west, Paionians to the south, Triballoi to the east, and independent Getic tribes to the north. So the Autaristai are not really a viable option.
While I don't know that I'd support Meroe, Kush, or an Illyrian tribe, I am seeing some interesting ideas put forth here! Lots of interest in adding factions to Europe, and I can't say I disagree with that notion. A Baltic faction might be in order...
What Krusader means I think is just because a faction/people were around in this time, doesn't mean they are auto getting a faction. Politically correct is not Historical Accuracy. Political correctness is calling someone "African-American" instead of "Black."
Where should theese two be placed, regarding that EB has to give up a province and Greece is reallly "full"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkiviadis
Maybe the term 'political correctness' wasn't the correct one to use.
What I meant is that to me it seems very many are suggesting Meroe/Kush/Ethiopia & Jews simply because they are blacks & Jews and their suggestions are not based on historical reasons.
Many seem to want to have Meroe/Kush/Ethiopia as factions solely because they are black factions. Problem with these factions is that within the EB time period they didn't expand or anything or had any great impact (at this point). I don't know much about African history, but as I recall from the little I know these kingdoms gained in strength and territory much later. Ethiopia or Axum's golden age was in 4th century AD I think.
Indeed the Nubians did repulse a Roman army but that alone doesn't mean they deserve to be a faction. And also...what fun to play a faction with two units? Spearmen & archers.
Also I think that's why someone nominates a Jewish faction (Hasmoneans (sp?) or Maccabeans). The Jews played an important part during Hellenistic Age and did indeed revolt, however they revolted because Antiochus III persecuted their religion due to a mistake. However, the main reason is that the faction would be an emerging faction and core area would really only be Judea. From my view it seems that as long as the Jews held Judea they were content. I would rather maybe make it a bit more rebellious and make some more Jewish units, although with the 500 unit limit, we might use it on something else.
The Mauryan Empire I think people are mentioning also just because they are Indians, although they were a powerful empire. However as stated before, the absoloute political centre was in eastern India and a massive chunk of the empire would not be on the map, which is bad. Also the Mauryans didn't expand either in Central-Asia.
A suggestion that has been put forth though is to have a Gandharan "satrapy" in the Indus valley.
I agree with Krusader whats the fun of only having a faction with two units or one that never expands.
BTW saying Black instead of African-American is not politically correct, it is just correct. African-Americans are people who immigrate to America from Africa, like myself. The black people in America who have more than 4 generations that live in America are just Americans.
I think that these are just leagues that divide the KH. As for losing one province, I suggest losing Cydaus in Africa. It just doesn't seem that important *compared to other EB provinces*.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus (about Aechaen and Aetolian Leagues)
IMO this is definently worthy of a faction slot, much more so than a Romani rebel faction. The Kingdom of Gandhara lasted from the 6th century BC to the 11th century AD (under various conquerors, and semi- autonomy, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Its main cities were Purushapura and Takshashila, both of which are cities in EB, I think (Takshashila is definently one). Here is a full Wikipedia article . It is also qutie plausible that if they gained their freedom like the Seleukid Satrapies, they would expand into Cental Asia, as they couldn't hope to conquer more land from the vast Mauryan empire to the south.
If you want to lose a settlement, you could also go for one of those far north settlements by the baltic sea, seeing as they are soo far away and uselessto make an impact. I think cydaus could be repositioned for if a numidan or the other north african faction was implemented, meaning more settlements for them.
Politically correct are names like: Eskimo's to Inuit's or Indian to Native Americans.
I'm sure we wouldn't place an Aitolian and Achaean faction both in the game Centurio.
Ok thank you I apologize. I have been reading Herodotus lately so he also influenced my views. again sorry for the misunderstanding. By the way Edwardvs Primvs what does your comment about African American and Black have to do with my question??? And what are Asian Indians that migrate to Africa who still practise there cuktural and religious beliefs?? Just trying to understand were your coming from.
It was mostly a rant and a respond to what Fonder_Yards said, but in regards to your question, do you want to know what Africans call them or what they like to be called?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman25
I'd like to know both
Please everybody don't shoot me....specially the Casse fans and the EB Casse team....but just a thought...couldn't the Casse be dropped for a more desirable new faction....just a question PLEASE DON'T BARBECUE ME ALIVE :laugh4: ....if whta I just said is sacrilegous to say the least I will go to my corner and wear my hat ..:dunce2:
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitius Ulpianus
The Casse are among our most popular factions it seems. Plus letting British Isles be totally empty to cram another Greek faction in?
Actually Im fairly sure we'll end up having two British Isles factions.
Hi,
Just by way of comment. There seems to be alot of 'they didn't do anything' etc being used as a means for ruling out several faction possibilities. This may be true but we should consider that some of these potential factions did not achieve anything because of what they came up against.....in our history. RTW and it's Mods are 'creating' a new history, so I personally fail to see what really did happen as a precursor for disqualification. Due to limited factions slots there is a need to be 'ruthless' with potential candidates, but perhaps not as ruthless as some would indicate. I doubt the Casse or Lusotani would feature were we to get too pedantic about a factions impact on the ancient world.
My 2 cents.....
On the assumption that there's 10 new faction slots available I would vote for-
1. Bithynia. Didn't achieve a great deal in our history, but with a slightly more productive gene they may have gone onto great things. They were the major rival of Pontus until incorporated into the Roman Sphere.
2. An eastern Gallic faction, perhaps Scordisci. The Galatians could even be deemed as part of this faction, perhaps even the Capitol. They caused major headaches for the Macedonians and then Romans at various times.
3. Syracuse, or a Western Greek alliance incorporating Syracuse, Massilia, .... Not terribly historic but a desent way of representing Western Greek influences in the area.
4. Seleucid Rebels. To represent alot of breakaway states- Jewish, Commagene, Gordyene? etc
5. Nabateaen Kingdom? Not sure about this one, but they did fight and beat most everybody who took them on. Could have been players were the circumstances right.
6. Roman Rebels. If possible, only appearing in heavily influenced Roman regions. The rest should be 'normal' rebels. Not sure whether this is possible.
7. Attalid Pergamene. As Bithynia. Let down by ability to reproduce in our history, but.....
8. Numidian Tribe. Whichever tribe is deemded most appropriate.
9. Another German federation. Perhaps Cimbri/Teutones with the ability to Horde.....
10. The most influencial Illyrian tribe. Probably Queen ?????. Her husband before had a much better handle on things and may have been able to unite more of Illyria that we see in our history.
Cheers,
Quilts
Queen teuta, and before king Bardyllis
The real difference I suppose is that you consider "impact on the ancient world" as merely impact on the classical world, and then the "wild" forces that oppose it from the outside.
Id like to see emerging factions.
Cimbre/teutones (horde)
helvetii (horde)
parthians (if eliminated early reemerging as a horde)
rebel factions for rome, seleucids, ptolemaic kingdom
spartacus!
I am going to revise my faction list.
1. Bastarnae
2. Belgae
3. Chatti
4. Masaesyles (Western Numidian Faction)
5. Massyli (Eastern Numidian Faction)
6. Cyrenaica
7. Pergamon
8. Syracuse
9. Mauryan Satrap
10. Galatian Tribe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Umm, I never said anything about more greeks...but as I said It was just a question...I never would have guesssed the Casse are popular...umm maybe I should try them next :beam:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitius Ulpianus
Actually adding another british faction would porbably be a good Idea...The reason I picked the Casse for "elimination" was a comment I read before about not being as exciting because you only fight rebels for quite a while at the beggining, but I must confess I have not play with them.
ack, sorry for double posting I meant to edit my post...no idea how this happened..silly me.
The Casse are anything but boring. They are one of the best factions to play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalkwerk
Factions that horde have been terribly made in BI (I haven't played MTW2, do they have hordes?)
You crush an entire nation, destroy them utterly and just because one family member survives, you suudendly have to deal with full stacks coming back again to take back their cities. Stupid.:wall:
From what I've heard, the pope hordes and migrates in M2TW.
So do the Mongols and Timurids.
Perhaps their charm lie in their isolated starting position, just like the Saka, Sab'yn, Swēbôz, Lusitanna (Haven't played though). After a while consolidating the Isles of Tin the Casse can really smash into the Gallic wars... Perhaps with this pattern of gameplay in mind it would be nice to add another (northern) Gallic faction (Belgae).Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitius Ulpianus
Gaul would become a mess and there would be some more opposition against the Legions.
*Crosses fingers for Erian*:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Also because you live in the Tin Isles you get a some pretty decent trade.
P.S. 2 British Factions Sounds good to me.
I guess it depends how it is implemented, because if they fight between themselves it actually might make things easier for the Romani....but I'm confident the EB team will do this the right way...if they decide to add another faction in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enguerrand de Sarnéac
I'm curious, is EB considering stretching the time frame out in EB2 and have a few emergences or, god-forbid, have it go until 500 AD and stick in all the BI factions :-p?
I noticed that in EB one has more opposition from different factions, so nothing at all about divide et impera However haven't played as the Romani so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitius Ulpianus
It would be marvelous to see an EB-version of the BI(-timeframe). Europa Barbarorum...gives a new dimension to the name:yes:
However I do imagine that it must be quite boring to playing through the whole Empire and the Pax Romana...Only having minor troubles with the Swēbôz...managing Europe...sounds incredibly boring:beam:
1. Erain (Competition for Casse)
2. Basternae (Stop the sweboz, getai and romans rolling into the steppes)
3. Second Arabic tribe to rival saba, or help fight against the sellies.
4. Mauryan Satrapy
5. Those western numidians (The ones enemies with carthage)
6. Belgae
7. Boii (Make Romans go for epirotes and sicily first, plus cisapline faction!)
8. Chatti (or helvetti)
9. Celtiiberians
I agree with most of that DA but do we know that the Chatti were united at this time. Also I'm fairly sure the celt-iberians weren't. I think the bastarnoz would be a good choice, they had great warriors. However the Lugii are probably more likely for central Europe since they were more influential and fought the Sweboz. Instead of the Boii in general how about the Nervii in particular or were the Boii really a united confederation?
The Nervii were Belgae, not Boii. The Boii had a large kingdom in central Europe, and there were also Boii migrants who lived in Italy. The central-eastern European Boii would be quite large and powerful; I don't like the idea of a small Cisalpine faction, cause it won't do much to actually hold back the Romans. However, would like to see, if the central European Boii were in, their control of the Cisalpine Boii, or have an alliance script (the latter is probably more realistic), since they did send aide to the Boii against the Romans.
In my opinion, it'd be better not to make so called competition for the factions at the outskirts of the map... I don't think one could seriously expect competition from one faction for starters, and I think it's one of the nice parts of the game, that you have factions far away from the world's centre that have to struggle a time agains the Eleutheroi first. Better to add factions to the factions in the middle of the map...more Greek cities or leagues, Belgae, perhaps cisalpine Gauls if that'd be historical, Kartli, etc.
I think it's far more interesting (to game of course) to witness conflicts between foreign powers just beyond your borders, and see your erstwhile allies or enemies recoil. It creates a political aspect, one must always have diplomats at hand near the homeland. Otherwise, it's also interesting to play for years against several different tribes (Eleutheroi), have a nice empire in your back when you suddenly bash with full power against the other factions...
If you, for instance, play as the Casse, then there's nothing about it of suddenly meeting the (p.ex) Eraìn... "Hell there they are...!"...nothing really interesting...
Any more units planned for the region apart from the midland axemen and naked spearmen already mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Are you serious? I'm about to attack them if they dont quite bossing me and my Holy Roman Empire around...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
And is there a limit to the number of hording? we cant horde averyone can we? if so, might as well put in the factions that migrated!
Papal states faction behaviour is different to ordinary hording, probably hardcoded.
Btw the region limit is 199 not 198 so you dont have to drop a province.
A few more units are planned in Britain. I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but there is another Caledonian unit to be done.
Finally Another Caledonian unit to ad to britain
One thing I like about EB is how spread out all the factions are- unlike in other mods where all the new factions tend to be very centered around the Mediterranean and are often judged based on how they performed vs the Romans. In EB the factions are spread all over, from the frozen North-Isles to the Arabian Desert to the vast steppe- so much diversity really gives the game flavor and re-playability. So we should keep this in mind while planning for any new factions.
Therefore, my suggestion is to allocate the new factions in the same way the old ones were allocated. Keep them spread out. If we add Syracuse, Illyria, Numidia, and another Iberian faction, the Western Med. will be overcrowded, with factions dying off in about 10 years (what's the point of having a faction that only has one province, and is surrounded by bigger factions? Syracuse wouldn't stand a chance!) and four diverse, spread-out factions would have been dropped for the sake of adding four factions with 50 year lifespans. Instead of saying precise factions, here are a few places I think are kinda empty right now and could use another faction:
Eastern Germany (more than enough tribes there to choose from)
Africa (I would looove to see Cyrene!)
Britain (one faction with all those provinces? how 'bout some compitition?)
Arabia (see above)
Asia Minor (this spot is potentially explosive- two weak Imperial powers holding onto the south, with a new power rising in the east- all it needs is a moderately powerful faction in the West or North and it'll become a huge battle-ground...sweet :2thumbsup: )
Gaul (even with two tribes, it's still mostly rebel, and that's no fun when we can have yet another tribe thrown in...)
Far East (Ever since the Yeuzhi left, there's no one to hassle the Bakrians or Seleucids eastern fronts.)
And here are some places I would NOT recommend adding a faction:
Sicily (let's face it- a Syracusian faction wouldn't last 10 years with Rome on one side and Carthage on the other. Syracuse was never independent of either one, they were only one one countries' side or another, as an ally. that's what the lvl 4 MIC represents right?)
Greece (Already it's super-dense with factions. Although if someone wanted to change up the factions, and drop the KH for a League of some sort that'd be ok...)
Cisalpine Gaul (they weren't united in the first place, and the strongest tribe is already represented as an ally of the Aedui.)
Spain (I feel the Spanish tribes are better represented by rebels than factions. Only one or two tribes ever had the power to occupy others, most just contented themselves with keeping out invaders-exactly what the rebels do now in Spain.)
sorry for the long post, I just had a lot to get off my chest. But I'll leave it up to the modders and historians to make the final decision. :book: :smash:
I was going to post my list, but then read Imperator's post and I agree 100%.
:2thumbsup:
@ Imperator:
So let me get this straight, you don't want to overcrowd certain parts of the map, but are willing to take out the only Iberian (say it with me) faction, and leave it to the rebels while at the same time wanting another faction in the isles (which is a much smaller space than the Iberian Peninsula) and *another* faction in Asia Minor where there's a already a constant involvement by the Seleukids, the Ptolemies, Pontus, Makedonia, the Koinon and sometimes the Armenians and Getai?
And what you're saying about peninsula is not true in the slightest, in my campaigns they usually contest the south with the Carthies, take Galaecia and Celtiberia while keeping the Romans and Aedui at bay in the North. I hardly call that doing nothing (not that it was true historically as well).
Better to say it's personal preference.
"And here are some places I would NOT recommend adding a faction:"
Sarcasm....I think he was talking about ADDING another faction...don't think he meant dropping the Lusotannan.
In any case it has been stated that no faction will be eliminated, right?
I like the idea of leaving Iberia as is, and not dropping the Lusotannan...just to be clear.
As he said "I feel the Spanish tribes are better represented by rebels than factions." I assume he meant all of them. If not, my bad.
The first paragraph still stands though.
The boii were a central european power? Wicked, that's even better than what i thought, them taking up a large amount of rebel provinces whilst blocking thr romans from going north.
Bohemia = "Land of the Boii"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbass
Also seems that the surnames Bawyer & Bowyer have Boii origins.
* delurks *
I'd like to second the suggestion made earlier for Rhodes as a faction, who'd (initially) be primarily naval and heavily dependent on keeping the sea trade going. They'd make an interesting change from the regular factions. You'd have to keep your trade rights going, keep your sea lanes open, and think about how to expand without starting a war against your trading partners. It would make a certain sense for them to "found" (i.e. capture from rebels) distant colonies. They might even migrate.
They'd doubtless be more straightforward in a short game than a long one, but reading the RTW forums it seems to me that an awful lot of people play a faction for a generation or two then restart, rather than going hundreds of years.
You mean like the Saka?Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_saka.html
Some lesser mentioned potential factions
Khwarizm - tough mailed horsemen. South of the Aral sea.
Massilia - an imprtant economic centre
Atropatene - Still nominally under Selucid control like the Bactrians but spoiling to break free and later do. Would be another thorn in the side for the Selucid juggernaught.
Caucasian Iberia - fought local peoples like Colchis (expansionism) fought the Armenians under Tigranes, and then fought the Romans.
how 'bout the picts? for another british faction?
A bit too early for the Picts i think (well too early to use that name anyway). Caledonians would be better.
Picts didn't exist yet for centuries. Caledonii maybe, but even then, they were a single tribal kingdom amid many others that inhabited Caledonia. The Brigantes (in Britain) and the Erainn (in Ireland) would be the most likely in the islands.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
First post of a long-time lurker.
I think, after reading the thread, that at least some of the slots should go like this (Disclaimer, I know that the EB team prefers to refer to factions as they referred to themselves, and I do not know how some of the below referred to themselves):
1-Kyrene
To stop the Carthaginian-Ptolemaic desert wars.
2-An Illyrian tribe, perhaps the Ardiaei?
Organised under Queen Teuta, the Illyrians were only subjugated by Rome after forty years and two wars.
3-A Numidian tribe, Massyli or Massaesyli
To stop complete Carthaginian domination of northwest Africa
4-Attalid Kingdom
Ruled Pergamon and Phrygia until giving it to the Romans. Fought off the Galatians.
5-Taxilan Satrapy/Gondhara
To prevent the "Big Blue Monster of Baktria", and because you can't have India without an Indian faction.
6-Chatii, or another German tribe, to offset the Sweboz and the Eastern Europe Domination.
7-Scythian Neapolis/Crimean Scythians/(Bosporans?).
Would be interesting to see a Balkan Hellenised Steppe faction, no?
8-Emerging Faction Yuezhi
Kicked arse when they came onto the scene. As another poster said, the equivalent of leaving Mongols out of M:TW
9-Another Gallic/Celtic/Barbarian Faction:
Preferably in Eastern Europe, to remove Eleutheroi. Didn't the Makedonians get completely pwned by a Barbarian Invasion slightly before the game started?
10-Either a Celtiberian Faction (Arevaci), a British Faction (Eainn) or the other Numidian tribe, Massyli or Massaesyli. Imagine three-way wars over North-West Africa.
Just to "Mix it up"
@Sarcasm- I meant keep Lusotonnan in but not add another faction. I think three factions would make Spain a little too crowded. The Lusatani have the Carthaginians to fight, but in Britain the Casse have no faction to fight with. (must get awful lonely all alone up there :tumbleweed: )
@Fonder Yards- Saka are a good start but I always see them bother the Pahlava and Baktrians, but they never migrate far enough south (or if they did, they couldn't do it fast enough) to harass the Seleucids. The Seleucid borders on India and where the Yeuzhi used to be aren't really under attack by anyone (until later in the game) and that doesn't seem right.
By the way, are emerging factions possible in MTW2? If so, shouldn't Bakria be an emerging faction since they didn't rebel until the 250's?
Not really. Emerging factions are usually used about factions that enter the map from outside the borders. And that is how we will treat them, although I'm fairly sure we will not have emerging factions, but if the Horde system can be tweaked then we will probably give the Horde feature to some factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator