Probably in EB1. Oops, you didn't hear that from me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Printable View
Probably in EB1. Oops, you didn't hear that from me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
any thought on the nubians guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
arent you all gypsies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
ive never heard of indian cataphracts, do you have any links/pictures?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim_Ghost
The Nubians weren't too strong at this time period. They wouldn't be able to do much but put forth a futile effort against Ptolemai and get conquered. Plus they didn't have a huge selection of variety in their military. They would have like 5 different units. And yes, they would have been interested in areas outside the current map.
Will there at least be some more Nubian/Ethiopian units Like Nubian Archers? And Herodotus mentions some clubmen serving in Xerxes armies alongside the Archers and Spearmen.
It comes down to priorities. New units for the new factions are much more important than one area of the map with all of two provinces. If there is room for them then great. If not... :shrug:
No. Most Romanians I know get furious when you call them gypsies. There is a lot of bad blood between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
I think Karltos was joking there but I wouldn't really call it bad blood but I'd wish they'd keep migrating and they do love the great western capitals but they get sent back because of citizenship :wall: . It's just these remnants of nomadic culture that are annoying like no respect for education (they don't send their kids to school after they are 14 years old, the bad taste in architecture etc.)
I also think it was meant to be a joke, but it was tasteless.
I think the current faction roster is fine (as long as you can get the Getai to do something) and would prefer to see emergent factions.
Possibilities for those are:
Yuezhi
Numidia
Persians
Roman rebels (after Marian Reform)
Bosphoran Kingdom
Judean Rebel
Celtic/Germanic migrations
and a whole raft of other factions already mentioned in this thread.
You could possibly demote Pontos to an emerging faction as well.
Um, Pahlava = Persia, doesn't it? :S
Not quite. The Persians were the original rulers of the area, while the Parthians were steppe nomads. They did take over a great deal Persian culture, but they had no real connection with the Empire that ruled there before Alexander the Great. In the second or third century A.D., the Parthians were overthrown by one of their Persian vassal, the Sassinids, who continued to rule in their stead. Apart from the name-change, this does not seem to have made great deal of difference (but I am hardly an expert). Doubtlessly, there would have been Persian uprisings against Seleucid rule, but as far as I know, caught between the Seleucids and the Parthians none of them had a big impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Um...right, so you want de facto Sassanids as a possible emerging faction, am I right?
I'd like two:
1) A Helleno-Skythian faction on the north shore of the Black Sea.
I don't mind exactly who or where, so long as it mixes classical (non-phalanx) hoplites, horse archers, missile troops, and light and heavy cavalry from the steppe. I've found these medium-weight fluid armies very enjoyable to play, compared to the straightforward Hellenic heavy pike/lance combo or the repetetive slow attrition of the HA {edit: horse archer} armies. Furthermore, it's one of the more interesting strategic positions on the map -- many directions to expand, many types of enemy to face, and it might even be worth building a navy.
But there's no faction here, so one doesn't get the chance. I've had more fun migrating the Hai/Getai to this area than playing them on their home turf.
2) Syracuse.
Nothing like starting with your toes in the fire... Judging by the Eleutheroi city in EB1, this faction would start with quite a high population and infrastructure and enough economy to run a useful army, plus a good set of walls and (I think) siege technology. If you manage to take Sicily, you've got a base which could stand off Rome and Carthage and eventually go further. Given a ruler with an Alexander streak, Syracuse might change the course of history.
Also Syracuse is a name to conjure with -- e.g. I'd heard of Hannibal's siege of Syracuse long before I knew where the city was. It's a good opportunity to let the player do something amaziing.
Syracuse might die pretty easily as an AI faction, but I'd rather that factions were balanced to be played. {People on this forum seem a little obsessed with AI faction balancing, I think they sometimes miss the point that the game gets played by humans too.}
What does HA mean? Hayasdan? :S
Er... No, I don't want the Sassinids as an emerging faction. What makes you think that? For one thing, they didn't emerge until way after EB's time-frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Horse archers. BTW, I would like to see a Bosporean Greek or Hellenized Scythian faction as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Horse archer. I'll edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
I'm thinking in terms of gameplay, not history. This being a game, and not a flash-animated historical text.
I don't want the Sassanids as an emerging faction. I want the possibility of a Persian faction emerging. These may come from the same area as the Sassanids did, but wouldn't be a Cataphract army as that culture hadn't reached Persis yet.
But that emerging faction list was just a heap of ideas thrown out there.
OK, now I understand! :beam:
We think in terms of history, and that describes our gameplay. There of course a lot of Greek cities on the northern shores of the Black Sea, so you never know! They wouldn't have pikes though, they would have a more of a KH army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morte66
Foot
We won't be using emerging factions, this was decided long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenfeeder
Foot
Yep. I sometimes wish you'd think more in terms of "what could have happened" than "what actually happened" in an interactive medium like computer games. But it's your mod, and I enjoy it, so it's no biggie. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
That's why I like 'em. I find the successor heavy pike phalanx + heavy cavalry armies a bit "blunt implement", I enjoy the fluid hoplite/missile/cavalry armies more.Quote:
They wouldn't have pikes though,
But with good cavalry and horse archers! And their neighbours wouldn't be all successor-style armies, they'd have a much wider mix of opponents. And they wouldn't get a license to print money by knocking over 2 Epeirote + 3 Macedonian cities in the first five years.Quote:
they would have a more of a KH army.
Er... we do, we just fly off into bizarre speculation. If we are concerned with what did happen, Hayasdan and all the other factions, who never expanded much, would be very uninteresting to play. We limit ourselves to safe speculation from the historical facts we do have. But "what could have happened" is a very large area of speculation, you don't like ours? fine, but we are not as uncreative as you seem to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morte66
In fact, I will prove you wrong in a very big and very important way soon enough. Just watch out for the next preview. :beam:
Foot
Oh, the suspense!Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
But are you referring to the next EB1 preview or the next EB2 Stele?
What does "Stele" actually mean BTW?
What about idea of rebel counterparts of your faction. IMHO it was very challenging in BI. Possibility of civil war gives you permanent threat regardless of your international successes. Why don't keep this challenge alive?Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp071
I hate this feeling, when my game loses his momentum. You know that feeling too I guess. It happens when you finish struggling in the beginning of the game, settle your economy and... you are doomed to boring conquering ;)
Imagine these AI active, tough and agressive rebellions could be programmed to ally with your enemies (maybe as protectorate) or to takeover your territory.
Emerging of rebellions could be connected with traits of your family members or antagonisms inside family (eg. spartans versus athenians in KH or hellens versus persians in Pontus).
So, don't spawn factions... God save me from my friends - I can protect myself from my enemies. ;)
I think the game needs an Inuit faction.
Get a Scandinavian Faction there in place of Denmark; and in like farther north nations. Like a pre-Saxon team but farther north???
Yeah. That would be cool! ~:snowman:Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Columm.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Wikipedia is yer friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele.
i was indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
how was it tastless?Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
It was tasteless because it was not funny, and prone to offend.
Add my vote to some kind of bosphoran greek kingdom.
Massilia (although historically quite limites) would also be nice, maybe (if historically plausible) in league with emporion.
With a mix of celtic, hellenic and iberian units it would be quite interesting to play and most of the roster is already in place...
A different approach to slowing down the Sweboz expansion - give them their own culture. Instead of the blanket "barbarian" culture, it could be split into Celtic, Iberian, Germanic, Dacian, Baltic/Slavic and so on. Additionaly the culture penalty to settlement happiness could be increased. For a long time Germanic expansion southwards was blocked by the Volcae, who were Celts living in what is now central Germany.
(An interesting aside - as a result "Volcae" entered the Germanic languages as the word for "foreigner". "Wales" actualy gets its name from this root - the Anglo-Saxons referring to it as the territory controlled by the foreigners.)
As for new factions, Nubia would be interesting. Kush was historically a strong regional player, even controlling Eygpt at times. Taharqa was a black pharoah, mentioned in the Bible. I don't know how important the Nubians were by the games starting point though...
Another minor problem is the characters would require new portraits to accurately depict a sub-saharan african people.
Numidia should be there, historically theyr important, but they present a bit of hassle on the culture front. They were not a Semitic people, so the developers have two options - 1: Give them a "Berber" culture to themselves or 2: Make a new "African" culture for Numidia and Carthage and lump the Sabaens in with the "Eastern" factions.
I doubt there'l be a Galatian faction because the EB team are big on historical accuracy, and historicaly the Galatians were never united under one ruler.
What are you basing that on? Galatia was ruled by a council of the leaders of the three big tribes that made up the country. It was a single power sub-divided into three large tribal desmenses, but all of those tribes followed along with the same head council. Also, when they aligned themselves with the Romans and became a Roman protectorate, the Romans selected from among them a man to be their over king.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny5
Johnny5, I can't comment on the rest of your suggestions, but I know the Total War games have certain hardcoded limits (i.e. ones which modders can't change): things such as the maximum number of provinces, the maximum number of factions and, indeed, the maximum number of different cultures. Therefore the EB team has to work within a fixed limit, which does go up by 1 I believe from RTW to M2, and with any luck might increase for Kingdoms as well.
Ok, after reading a bit about them, I'd like to post my vote for a new faction:
The balares.
The balares were one of the most important nuragic tribes in Sardinia during the 3rd and 2nd century BC, controlling most of interior Sardinia.
Before the punic wars they were an important ally of Carthage, trading grain, olive oil, wine and the occasional mercenary contingent.
After the 1st punic war they were the de facto sole owners of Sardinia, with the carthaginian garrison slaughtered by the mercenary revolt they in turn pushed the mercenaries out of Sardinia.
After the roman tried to seize control of Sardinia they put a stiff resistance using guerrilla warfare with great success, even after they lost at Cornus.
In many ways they were like th Iberians and in fact some of the western tribes of Sardinia were of iberian origin, while in the east they had significant ties with the Etruscans.
They would start in control of central Sardinia (if a settlement could be spared from there) with Tiscali or Nukor (alternatively western sardinia with Tharros or North with Turris but those were under punic influence) as capital.
Their roster would be based on light infantry with ambush tactics, mostly spearmen, archers and axemen with the nobles being the heavier units.
Sadinian ponies at the time were not apt for field battles being used to mountainous terrain so they would start with little or no native cavalry.
Their area of expansion would be the western mediterranean, with Sardinia, Corsica, eastern Iberia and the former etruscan areas of Italy.
Getting out of History for a second and shrouding in myth, here is a little link that will stir some debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locatio...antis#Sardinia
Did all the old EB fans move to EB2 forums?...
plz include an alpine faction...
i would like to see the greeks split up some more. make athens and sparta not apart of the same faction, also the greek faction in the balkans to include more lands, seeing how the greeks colonized almost all of the shores of the black sea.
If you want to see more greeks at least in RTW then XGM could be your cup of tea...
I had posted it in the wrong threadQuote:
Originally Posted by KuKulzA
I'd like to see:
Numidians, Cyrenacians for more action in Africa
2nd faction in Britain/Ireland for more action in the British Isles
Anothey probably won't be made.
Illyrians.
And people seem to like Syracusans, which would be fun since they have room to expand.er Germanic faction. Plus one more from Gaul and one from Iberia.
A faction between the Sauromatae and Getae.
Indian faction, though th
I wouldn't mind some unit overlap since the skinning team does such a good job in keeping things looking unique though they are the same unit underneath.
Factions I'd like in EBII:
(ranked from most want to least want
Illyria
Chauci
India (This would be somewhat interesting because at about 270BC almost all of India was united under the Mauryan Dynasty, making the faction a big player from the start. I doubt this one will be possible though)
Numidia
Chatti
Celtiberians
Brigantes
Galatia
Pergamon
Two Numidian Tribes
Bastarnae
Boii
Belgae
Bosporan Kingdom
Another German Tribe (anything to stall them)
and if there's nothing else, then Syracuse:laugh4:
Well I think it's a Galatian faction will be great is they have a high bulding levels and if they have super units. One or two emergent faction(s) in Asis and Europe in middle of the game .
I think there should be more factions to the north as well. Norway would in my opinion be the best.
Norway? Although I am not very sure about the tribes north of the Cimbri, I don't think there was an entity that could be identified as Norway in 272 B.C. Could you explain who were in this area and why they were important in this era?Quote:
Originally Posted by Christianus
That's an interesting question. I have not heard or read a word about "my" area in this period. I would guess we know pretty much nothing as they did not have any written material AFAIK, and noone who did write cared to go so far north into the cold to get to know them... I think the runes were a millenium later, at least the vikings were using them. Also a millenium later was the uniting of the country by Harald Hårfagre. At any rate, I don't think we have anything to base a faction on.
Indeed.
In history classes I'm taking at the University the curriculum on Norwegian history starts around 800 AD.
My advise: another east-german tribe (goths maybe), and illyria/thrace on balkans. As I don't like playing as "God", I suggest to divide rome in 2 playable factions (Julii and pro-senate faction) and ,if senate works in m2tw, add senate. Such thing can be doned with carthage and greek cities. The rest of slots can be used for emergent/shadow factions to enhance gameplay
The areas of "civil" wars (gaul, greece, rome) needs more factions to emulate this possible civil wars.
The "Senate" was part of the vanilla 'silliness' that EB has endevoured to move away from. There won't be a Senate again in EB.
Are there any planes for Papel Sates
It will be removed and the slot will be used for a real playable faction.
Could the papal election be used to replicate the crowning of a Celtic King (which my understanding is, was based on ability rather than hereditary factors) . I guess it comes down to whether the faction can be replicated for each Celtic Kingdom, or a script that makes the Papal States the playable faction (ie changing relevant files before beginning the relevant Celtic campaign, a bit like what I think RTR are doing with 7.0)
I imagine there are too many hardcoded factors around the papal states to make that viable. besides, many factions could use a similar system. With all likelihood we will rename it so we can reuse it as a normal faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberius Victor
Foot
Christianus, thank god you think there should be a northern faction.
Also for a German faction, the Teutonic tribe might be the best, they almost made Germany/Germania. For the most part from what I have heard they were a dominate tribe in Germania. They worked along side other tribes and attacked Rome as well.
Also Krusader*, Scandinavian "history" starts before German history fyi, just in case you had no knowledge of the fact Germans came form Scandinavians tribes and people. Thats your history lesson.
The fact there is less Scandinavians history is based on what romans could find etc... But they had there own history before Germanic tribes of the time; I think you might should have worded your statement a little differently???
What's wrong with "In history classes I'm taking at the University the curriculum on Norwegian history starts around 800 AD."? It's accurate, we don't learn anything of the history before that in schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
I said the curriculum starts around 800 AD. And I do know Germans came from Scandinavia or at least that is the main theory (there are many theories on ethnicities of peoples). Maybe you should have read my statement a little differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
more aggresive sarmatae,another germanic tribe, an indian kingdom to challenge baktrian dominance in the region, another baltic/dalmatian faction and ofc another briton tribe
Damn hard codes:thumbsdown: , but you must just get lucky and find a viable work around to the automatic heir system in MTW2 :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
A scandinavian faction would also have to be a faction that starts out at the edge of the map. Factions like that have an unfair advantage. Considering this is a historical mod, I don't think adding more factions a'la Saka Rauka would be a great thing.
But the real Scandinavia does start at the edge of the map. I mean, it's almost surrounded by water. I don't think this unhistorical/unrealistic strategic advantage for a Scandinavian faction really exists. They'd have an advantage maybe, but it wouldn't be unhistorical/unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Now the objection that there wasn't anyone around worth making into a faction, or any historical information to build them with, that makes excellent sense.
What about freeing another satrapy from the Seleukids in the east, similar to Baktria's independence at the start of the game? I remember that being proposed on the forums a few months ago but i dont know if it has been ruled out like the Indians. Their competition would probably ease the problems players are having with the "Grey death", and Baktria wouldn' have total dominance over the Far East, either. Another german faction and maybe the Belgae too would solve the expanding Sweboz problem.
edit: I've probably said this before but since the mauryas are not being represented as a faction a couple of huge rebel stacks should spawn when an indian province is taken to represent the indian's resistance to their cities being conquered. A trans-subcontinental empire isn't just going to meekly allow one of their satrapies to be taken without a fight. I don't know if this is possible though.....
Quick and dirty solutions for map borders: make them with high unrest/rebellion rates so that whoever occupies them has to put large garrisons, it's not perfect but better than nothing as abstract emulation...
I remember you suggesting that before. It seems like an excellent idea. You take an Indian city from the Eleutheroi, and big stacks spawn and try to take it back, and if you fend them off you get to keep the city. Maybe they could spawn after 1/2/4/8/16 etc years to represent the Mauryas kicking hard at first and gradually accepting that they lost those areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
I guess these factions will not make it to EB2(though they are popular):
Numidians - not united enough, never had ambitons or oportuniti to build empire
Illirians - same as Numidians
Syracuse - between carthagian anvil and roman hammer
northern Germanic faction - no place to expand
Cyrene - too weak to be real danger to either Ptolemies or Carthage
Galatians - powerful mercenaries but otherwise band of robbers
Meroe - (my beloved :egypt: ) only 2 possible units (who said this!?)
Persians - there was no real opposition to Seleucids in 272 BC
Yuezhi - arrived about 50 years after the game starts
It's hard to get an eleutheroi army to be aggressive in a non-eleutheroi province. There has been talk about representing the Mauryan presence though I'm not sure if it can be made for the next release, or if it will ever work as we want it to.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
The rest I agree, but Syracuse don't seem so flimsy if you examine them carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
As an AI faction, they already do pretty well (they usually last longer than Pontos for example). Not that I think that's especially important -- the game is there to be played, not watched.
Now as a player faction they look very interesting... Going by EB1 they're a big city with passable economy and army. There is one medium-grade Carthaginian army to beat, and then they can potentially have the whole of Sicily which is rich and defensible at an excellent choke point. Then there's a two province Eleutheroi buffer towards Rome. And there are potentially mines on Corsica/Sardinia, which are held by pretty harmless isolated garrisons.
With Carthage out of Sicily they can make peace; and by the time they fight Rome they need not be so outnumbered.
It beats Pontos/Pergamon/Galatia, who border Seleucids from the start and will get no relief until the AS is destroyed.
Plus it may have one or two interesting units, like gastraphetes (which I believe they were still used by them)...
I'm a little disappointed to hear that Syracuse has been dismissed. I do wish they would be reconsidered and not be counted out simply for gameplay reasons.
I'm fairly certain that I could take Syracuse and do well. The gameplay concerns raised about small factions squeezed in between superpowers applies much less to them than a faction like Cyrene or Pergamon, both of which I've argued for.
I understand that we don't want too many greek factions, but there are really two camps: Hellenistic Factions (Ptolemaioi, Makedonia, etc.), and then they're is the more classic Factions, of which they're is only one right now, that being KH. I think at least one more classic greek faction, preferably centered in the Western Med, would give EB2 a much needed small faction in the west that isn't barbarian.
Lol ... wouldn't surprise me seeing as EB was intent on including Goildic units at the behest of one. May as well included the French, Portugese and Genoans, etc :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
what if you ask CA nicely if they could teach you how to turn the faction and unit limits off? just a thought :)
No, we won't be able to do that. It's part of the deepest internals of RTW; so all we can ask CA nicely is do it for us.
However. I do think there is a reason behind the faction limit. And that reason probably is something CA would rather not expose; I imagine it being something with the way the engine uses PC resources...
They've said this openly. They allocate the resources regardless of whether they're used or not, so they want to limit it in order to keep system requirements down.
Je ne le comprends pas d'aucun point?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Which is entirely understandable. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
Another steppe faction? There's lots of little rebel states around the Saka's lands. Mainland Belgae? Heruskoz?
I think Scandinavia is out of question, sadly. We didn't exactly have anything to boast about. We did have a magnificent bronze age, but now they've found out that everything came from down south.:no:
I'd personally love a Scandinavian tribe, and the argument of them having an unfair advantage because they'd be at the edge of the map is silly. Look at Casse for crying out loud! All it has to do is to defeat the Eleutheroi there, and then it can't be destroyed unless the player is someone else and decides to sail there. God knows the AI never will. An AI faction could always destroy a Scandinavian one... unless that one is the player, and he/she migrated to Britain. Yet I don't hear you complaining about "Casse's unfair advantage", why?
That being said, there won't be a Scandinavian faction in game. There's just a lot more other possible factions that had a bigger impact on history, that we know much more about etc. So, while it would be completely awesome to have one (and the best position would of course be SWEDEN, not Norway :laugh4:), there won't. We'll always be left out... except perhaps in Empire: Total War? :idea2: Sweden just gots to be in there.
As for the new factions in EB2, I'd hope for...
- Another Germanic tribe to rival the Sweboz
- Belgae!
- A faction to rival Casse... which we're getting. :2thumbsup:
- No bloody Syracuse!
- Sequani? I've just grown to love the name, 's'all.
- A Baltic faction? I know the arguments against it (I have read this whole thread), but I still think it's too Eleutheroi-based.
- Galatians! Show the clever-clever Greeks that the Celts reign supreme!
- Bartix!
- Anything that has no argument for it that has anything to do with the curse "Rome".
... what?