New factions?

Quote:

---

With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?

---

I´ll gladly take one :)
I do not like "landbridges" actually, but one could make one between England and Continental Europe to spice things up. I actually liked Belgians in EB1, their warlike FMs, and their superb troops! It might come as a suprise, but i think there is going to be an "Alpine Faction", instead of those "elite Rebell stacks". With decent units and sofisticated diplomatic settings for that faction, they, along with the Belgians, might be exactly what Europe might need to get "fully populated". With the Arevaci in Spain, all those factions should give a tought time to Romans, or whoever wishes to establish a large pan European empire. I always find it more difficult to fight several small ( but well situated, financially ) factions, then have one oponent, and so should the AI, because even with one settlement those factions are able to replenish their losses, regroup, grab a settlement or two, and come back in couple of years, to take a revange.

The only thing i hope is that Carthaginians will finaly compete for Sicily, really nice Punic Wars, instead of their stacks roaming around African deserts to capture worthless Eleutheroi villages. Wars between Carthage and Ptolemaioi in the Lybian desert are very irrealistic, and annoying too, imho.

I also hope, that the team will pay more attention on "autoresolving", since that´s the way AI armies fight against each other. The super heavy armour, or phalangitai are simply overwhelming for the poor barbarians in long terms. Maybe some tweaks are possible to make units stronger ( EDU i.e ) on particular terrain to give them a needed advantage, or to amplify the "rationing" effect on generals, reducing their command stars by half, and/or some other tweaks ( i´ve got no idea about MTW2 engine at all ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I was dissapointed to see the Casse replaced by the Pritanoi and likewise the announcement that the Pritanoi would be the only British faction (actually really annoyed by the fact Ireland has been decreased to a single province centred on Tara, UP NAVAN!) however I have since reconcilled myself with the fact that there really is no other possible British faction to compete against the Casse/Pritanoi. The main rivals of the Casse, the Atrebates, did not arrive to 100BC at the earliest, even with historical information and numismatic evidence we cannot seperate the Trinovantes history from the Casse and to set them up as rivals would be foolish as they are in such close proximity. Elsewhere in Britain there are no suitable candidates for a faction, the Brigantes and Caledones were both confederacies and quite possibly only emerged as result of the Roman threat in the 1st century, whilst other tribes such as the Iceni, Durotriges and Dumnonii in the midlands were not expansionist and instead appear to have been primarily traders.

With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?

---

Unfortunately you are correct, and I will probably go either Gauls, Romans, or Greeks on my first campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vollorix

I´ll gladly take one :)
I do not like "landbridges" actually, but one could make one between England and Continental Europe to spice things up. I actually liked Belgians in EB1, their warlike FMs, and their superb troops! It might come as a suprise, but i think there is going to be an "Alpine Faction", instead of those "elite Rebell stacks". With decent units and sofisticated diplomatic settings for that faction, they, along with the Belgians, might be exactly what Europe might need to get "fully populated". With the Arevaci in Spain, all those factions should give a tought time to Romans, or whoever wishes to establish a large pan European empire. I always find it more difficult to fight several small ( but well situated, financially ) factions, then have one oponent, and so should the AI, because even with one settlement those factions are able to replenish their losses, regroup, grab a settlement or two, and come back in couple of years, to take a revange.

The only thing i hope is that Carthaginians will finaly compete for Sicily, really nice Punic Wars, instead of their stacks roaming around African deserts to capture worthless Eleutheroi villages. Wars between Carthage and Ptolemaioi in the Lybian desert are very irrealistic, and annoying too, imho.

I also hope, that the team will pay more attention on "autoresolving", since that´s the way AI armies fight against each other. The super heavy armour, or phalangitai are simply overwhelming for the poor barbarians in long terms. Maybe some tweaks are possible to make units stronger ( EDU i.e ) on particular terrain to give them a needed advantage, or to amplify the "rationing" effect on generals, reducing their command stars by half, and/or some other tweaks ( i´ve got no idea about MTW2 engine at all ).

---

If only they removed the option of going South, the anti-Barcids lost and playing those isn't fun because it feels more like hunting then warfare. But on Britons steamrolling Gaul and often Germany it is a serious possibility it did afterall happen in Rome Total War when British Isles had less.

The Pritanoi will only have one province to start, not all of Prittania.

From the fan based map progression thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

the starting province of the Pritanoi, its the landlocked province in Southern England (Penncrugon).

---

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/v...orrio_6_2.html
I found this very interesting link to an article about the Celtiberian methods of warfare. From the article:

Quote:

---

From the fifth century's end to the end of the third century BC, at the end of the Middle Celtiberian phase, the dominance of the Upper Tagus and Jalon valleys shifted to the lands of the Upper Douro (Lorrio 1997: 315-316). Evidence for this change is seen in the rise of the Arevaci, the most powerful Celtiberian populus in the fight against Rome. The cemeteries of the right bank of the Upper Douro (Soria) that belonged to them contained numerous warrior tombs that reflect their importance in Arevaci society and its military character. The tombs in these cemeteries do not have the helmets, pectorals or the large embossed bronze umbos of the Aguilar de Anguita or Alpanseque type burials (Lorrio 1997: 173-182).

---

Quote:

---

During the Middle Celtiberian period (ca. 450-225/200 BC), the Celtiberians secured and stabilized the areas settled in the Early period, and began to occupy new lands such as the right bank of the Middle Ebro Valley (Capalvo 2001). The settlements grew in size (some of them between two and five hectares) and number, and the number of cemeteries increased (Fig. 18). All of this indicates sustained demographic growth and systematic occupation of territory.

---

Quote:

---

The first of the areas mentioned above corresponds to the inland regions of the Iberian Peninsula, where the Celtiberians would have been located (Fig. 3).5 This group was expressly considered by several authors to be Celtic (Posidonius, in Diodorus 5, 33; Strabo 3, 4, 5; Martial Epigr. I, 55, 8-10 and X, 63, 3-4; Isidorus Ethym. 9, 2, 114). From the late third century BC onwards, Graeco-Roman literary sources began to provide the earliest information on the Celtiberians and Celtiberia, and gave accounts of the names of Celtiberian peoples and their location. There is no single unanimous opinion regarding the links between peoples that could be considered Celtiberians, which include the Arevaci, Pelendones, Lusones, Belli and Titti, and occasionally Vaccaei, Carpetani, Olcades, Lobetani, and even more distant groups such as Oretani, Bastetani, Bastuli or Celtici. There is similarly no shortage of authors who reject the ethnic content of the term altogether, and take it to refer to all inhabitants of an extensive area of the inland Peninsula.

---

Quote:

---

The first reference to Celtiberia is made within the context of the Second Punic War, in Polybius' narration of the siege of Saguntum (3, 17, 2) in the spring of 219 BC. From this date onwards, information about Celtiberians and Celtiberia is plentiful and varied, since the Celtiberians were one of the key players in the various wars and battles that took place throughout the second and first century BC, which culminated in the destruction of Numantia in 133 BC. Celtiberia also played a vital role in the Sertonian Wars (Salinas 1996: 27-37).

---

Quote:

---

According to Strabo (3, 4, 13), Celtiberia was divided into four territories, of which he only made reference to those inhabited by the Arevaci and Lusones, although Polybius (35, 2) and Appian (Iber. 44, 48-49, 50, 61-63 and 66) revealed that the other two corresponded to the Belos and Belli and Titthi tribes. A little further on, Strabo (3, 4, 19) indicated that some believed that there were five areas. Several candidates were proposed as inhabiting this fifth zone, including the Vaccaei, who were considered Celtiberians by Appian (Iber. 50-52, 53-54) although in general they appeared in sources as two separate peoples. In all probability, this fifth section was inhabited by the Pelendones, whom Pliny (3, 26) described as Celtiberians.

---

Quote:

---

The Celtiberians could be considered an ethnic group insofar as they included subordinate ethnic units, just as the Gauls or the Iberians did, but on a smaller scale, without evidence for centralized power or even a political hierarchy (Burillo 1993: 226).

---

When the Celtiberian War began, the other Celtiberian tribes (Titti, Belli, Lusones, etc.) were willing to rally around them to head the war against Rome. This the Arevaci did very well, as Polybius illustrates well:

"The war between the Romans and the Celtiberians was called the 'fiery war,' so remarkable was the uninterrupted character of the engagements....The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness, the combatants refusing either to let their courage flag or to yield to bodily fatigue, and ever rallying, recovering confidence and beginning afresh. Winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one."

Polybius, The Histories (XXXV.1)

Indeed, when Scipio Aemilianus besieged Numantia, the Arevaci capitol, He refused to give battle to the enemy, though they offered battle many times out of desparation from starvation, because he recognized that he would lose. In the end, it was not a crushing military defeat that felled the Arevaci, but starvation.

The Arevaci were the main tribe of the Celtiberians, and had lots of polical influence in the affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. During the Middle Celtiberian Period, which ended in ~220 BC, the Celtiberians were expanding into the territory of their neighbors, and consolidating these conquests. The Arevaci would certainly also take part in this expansion wave. That establishes that they were a conquest oriented people during Europa Barbarorum II's timeframe. As for their importance to other factions, the Celtiberians a s a whole were definently as powerful as the Lusotanan, perhaps even more. Furthermore, the Iberian Peninsula is begging for another faction. Having the Lusotana conquer all of the peninsula in a breeze is not very realistic, after all, they never expanded due to hostile neighbors. Having the Arevaci would help to slow down the Lusotana. Also, the Arevaci's expansionistic tendancies were counteracted by hostile neighbors, just like the Lusotana. Having both would make the portrayal of each more realistic.As the principle tribe of the Celtiberians, they certainly warrant a faction. Also, there is an ample historical record to construct the Arevaci faction.

Did Pritanoi ever touch Europe´s soil in any attempt to gain land in the EB time frame?

Yes, in fact they were in constant contact with it (unless they jumped).

LOL, I assume by "Europe" he meant the mainland. Great response, though.

lol. But assuming he meant the mainland, then no, I don't think they ever did. I believe that they were too busy killing one another in Britain to be bothered about the mainland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Yes, in fact they were in constant contact with it (unless they jumped).

---

Was it ahistorical the starting province that CA gave them in France in Rome vanilla ,then?

Im just saying because I sometimes get annoyed at the fact that ´Pritanoi´ will never carry troops into France to conquer land when Im not playing as them...

I hate seeing them just start in Britannia and sit there for the rest of the campaign...

And also...

I would love ... if the EB team decided to make an ´invisible bridge´just like constantinople´s city in between France and Britannia...
It would help the issue of Island Factions to not have to carry troops into another place using boats...Because they never do it that way...Just as Pritanoi...

I think that would be a good idea, it would help spice things up in Prittania.

What...
The invisible bridge...Or the Province that CA game them in vanilla?

If they indeed, decided to add an invisible bridge through there...

It should take at least 2 turns to cross it...
That... Id suggest.. lol

Well, the problem in EB is that the AI very rarely uses ships. If this changes with EBII we might very well see Pritanoi invasions of the mainland.

Eddy, Bobbin made a joke. Brittain is also Europe.

And the MedII naval AI is much, much better then in RTW. Even in vanilla Scotland will expand in Europe (particulary Belgium) if it's at peace with England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paltmull

Well, the problem in EB is that the AI very rarely uses ships. If this changes with EBII we might very well see Pritanoi invasions of the mainland.

---

That´s what I´d like to see... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

Eddy, Bobbin made a joke. Brittain is also Europe.

And the MedII naval AI is much, much better then in RTW. Even in vanilla Scotland will expand in Europe (particulary Belgium) if it's at peace with England.

---

Lol...
I hope the naval AI is better in EB2..
I would´nt like to watch a faction just sittin´in an island doing nothing :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddy_purpus

Was it ahistorical the starting province that CA gave them in France in Rome vanilla ,then?

---

For the most part, I guess they were basing it loosely on the Atrebates, a Belgic tribe, who we supposed to have held territory on both sides of the channel. It's certainly incorrect for 270BC though.

Quote:

---

Im just saying because I sometimes get annoyed at the fact that ´Pritanoi´ will never carry troops into France to conquer land when Im not playing as them...

I hate seeing them just start in Britannia and sit there for the rest of the campaign...

And also...

I would love ... if the EB team decided to make an ´invisible bridge´just like constantinople´s city in between France and Britannia...
It would help the issue of Island Factions to not have to carry troops into another place using boats...Because they never do it that way...Just as Pritanoi...

---

The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.

---

I adjusted it to prevent misinterpreting :laugh4:

Thank you, amended my post too.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

For the most part, I guess they were basing it loosely on the Atrebates, a Belgic tribe, who we supposed to have held territory on both sides of the channel. It's certainly incorrect for 270BC though.


The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.

---

So it is likely that we will see naval invasions from the Pritanoi on France or other parts of Europe :D?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddy_purpus

So it is likely that we will see naval invasions from the Pritanoi on France or other parts of Europe :D?

---

I suppose we can't know until we play, but I have seen naval invasions in a few M2TW mods. Most notably, I see lots of naval invasions (like persistant repeated attempts against you from the same faction instead of just occasional attempts throughout the game) in Thera: Legacy of the Great Torment, however that may be in part because unit costs and upkeep are very low in that mod. There is always the worry that the extreme expense of ships in EB2 (assuming they are as expensive as in EB1) may discourage the AI from building a navy and launching naval invasions. But hopefully the money scripts for the AI will offset that.

Still, there is certainly evidence that the M2 AI is capable of repeated naval invasions.

Given how atrocious the naval AI in BI was, expensive ships preventing spamming of fleets is not a bad thing.

I was playing several different campaigns last time and there is one thing i must say: The AI can in fact do really good naval invasions! Rhodes was the island where everyone seemed to want to invade, and i have seen Macedonians, Epirotes, Ptoleys and Seleucids landing their troops, partly full stacks, there and sieging the city. The AI also knows very well about the advantages of Rhodes military docks, and unless they are of the same culture, they do not bother with building up barracks or even auxillaries, but instead went strait for the shipwrights, cranking out powerfull ships within shortes possible time. Those pathetic landings happen only if the AI is assuming there is only a small garrison on the island, or is mislead by an ambushing party, but if a factions wants Rhodes, and that seemed to be quite a priority for the factions i listed above, they used to get it, sooner or later, mostly after the first attempt with a decent stack. I wouldn´t call BI.exe inept in performing of naval invasions, the point is, it´s still AI and no human, who can concentrate his whole power on one single battle/front, while heroically defending the rest of the empire with couple of slingers and FM ;)

I do agree on this point; i got certain screenshots with which I documented what I called my "the carthie's D-DAY": A massive fleet operation to support hard pressed Italian holdings with 2-3 fullstacks with troops from the whole carthaginan empire (including spain and the baleares). I had not the timne to upload them yet, but they prove, that the BI.exe AI is capable of "planning" a sea invasion besides from sending 2-3 units to sicily.

Nabatu.


Discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

Nabatu.


Discuss.

---

Fail. The Nabataean Kingdom did not emerge as a clear, independent kingdom until the mid-2nd century BC when the ptolies and seleukids were in decline and could not claim soverign over the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

Nabatu.


Discuss.

---

Your post doesn't met the minimum that is expected on this forum, this is not 4chan.
If you want to discuss about a potential faction search for proof, read the sources and present it while using at least minimalistic academic standards.

XSamatan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

Your post doesn't met the minimum that is expected on this forum, this is not 4chan.
If you want to discuss about a potential faction search for proof, read the sources and present it while using at least minimalistic academic standards.

XSamatan

---

Actually, the minimum allowed on this forum is 3 characters. Otherwise it would not have even let me post.
The problem with the Nabataeans is that there is very little history available about them around 272 BC. However, I figured that since people on TWC were very receptive to the idea of the Nabatu as a faction, that people here would be as well, and that a few gems of information may crop up that could be used to formulate a case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

Fail. The Nabataean Kingdom did not emerge as a clear, independent kingdom until the mid-2nd century BC when the ptolies and seleukids were in decline and could not claim soverign over the area.

---

Fail yourself. The Nabataeans were an organized tribe in 272 BC, indeed they were so at the extreme minimum at least almost 50 before then, almost certainly far longer, maybe even centuries old. Maybe you should have done some research, if one looks even the most effortless search would show that in 311 BC a Diadochi army was thrown back from Petra by enemies who are clearly the Nabataeans. The fact that they defeated the army sent to subjugate them means they were independant, both because they had not already been subjugated and by the fact that their defeat of the army further solidified their independance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

Fail yourself. The Nabataeans were an organized tribe in 272 BC, indeed they were so at the extreme minimum at least almost 50 before then, almost certainly far longer, maybe even centuries old. Maybe you should have done some research, if one looks even the most effortless search would show that in 311 BC a Diadochi army was thrown back from Petra by enemies who are clearly the Nabataeans. The fact that they defeated the army sent to subjugate them means they were independant, both because they had not already been subjugated and by the fact that their defeat of the army further solidified their independance.

---

I'm sorry? You didn't do that search until I pointed out to you were you should look. The least you could do is point out the places where you found the information, and share it with Jaertecken. And be a bit nicer in general.

Alright.
I am sorry Jaertecken.
And it was not your sources that provided me with that info. It was splattered all over Wikipedia, and then was verified by other sources I checked, including yours, though only later.

312 Bc IIRC.

One of the sources I saw said that it was 311 BC, and went on to say that it was commonly incorrectly dated to 312 BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

One of the sources I saw said that it was 311 BC, and went on to say that it was commonly incorrectly dated to 312 BC.

---

Hmmm interesting. Could you forward me the source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Hmmm interesting. Could you forward me the source?

---

Ja/Oui. http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/p...story_2007.pdf I hope this link works. Be warned: what I am talking about is a few pages down.

With the news (see Generals Preview) that the Averni and Aedui will have their starting territories reduced to just Gergovia and Bibracte, respectively has anyone ruled out a Cisalpine Gallic faction (most likely candidate in my opinion would be the Insubres) or will the Boii be used to fill this void?

Also I am willing to bet my torque and chariot that the Suessiones (or some variation upon that tribe) will be a faction.

idk if the faction list is set in stone yet or what, but man do i really hope for a Syrakuse faction. Playing as them was probably my favorite part of RS, and taking them over or having a Syrakuse migration campaign is probably my favorite thing to do in EB.

Starting with Hiero and Archimedes, a small fleet, and sandwiched in between Carthage, Epeiros and Rome would just be fun! I prefer their hoplites over any other hellen soldier

personally i prefer the greek noble cavalry you can have a proper anvil and hammer tactics using them and most importantly you get bruttians in rhegion for the flanks (i prefer them over peltastai) and if you lucky you can visit the baleares and get some nice slingers and assault infantry making the syracusan state army probably one of the strongest one´s available

playing as syracuse the biggest problem will undoutably be your finances and keeping an army in the field since you´ll end up at war with the romans and carthies and therefore lacking in trading partners altough if you play it smart you can probably milk the carthies for a few thousand mnais once you´ve taken lilabeo and then some more when you take sardinia and then corsica and then the baleares putting yourself up as the northern western mediterranean powerhouse (but trade can only take you so far)

also for the navy are there any decent shipyards in the western mediterranean ?

I'm fairly sure that Syracuse has been firmly ruled out.

I second that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I'm fairly sure that Syracuse has been firmly ruled out.

---

And I'm fairly sure it isn't. :)

That said: I don't think they will be in (the first release).

I don't see how many other factions could have that much priority over Syracuse. I mean they were clearly a big player in the mediterannean, and just for gameplay purposes i can't think of a more fun starting position and the obstacles that have to be overcome.

You are competing for the master of trade in the Mare against Carthage, for Hellenic dominance against Epeiros, and just in general wary of the rising SPQR. Plus... Hiero and Archimedes!


regardless of their faction-hood, will the Syracusan hoplites have a very unique skin here too? They are the coolest looking hoplite by far, that shield design and their color scheme is beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

I don't see how many other factions could have that much priority over Syracuse. I mean they were clearly a big player in the mediterannean, and just for gameplay purposes i can't think of a more fun starting position and the obstacles that have to be overcome.

You are competing for the master of trade in the Mare against Carthage, for Hellenic dominance against Epeiros, and just in general wary of the rising SPQR. Plus... Hiero and Archimedes!


regardless of their faction-hood, will the Syracusan hoplites have a very unique skin here too? They are the coolest looking hoplite by far, that shield design and their color scheme is beautiful.

---

They really were not that important at all. They only controlled a small portion of Sicily, and even with the Carthaginians spread extremely thin across Iberia, Africa, Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily still could not manage to drive them off the island: the closest Carthage ever came to being driven off the island was at the hands of a certain Epirote whom we are all familiar with, and not by a Syracusan. They were more than willing to submit to Roman domination after just one battle against them in the First Punic War, which shows that they realized that their own strength was pitiful compared to that of the Romans (under any other circumstances, a tyrant like Hiero would have put up more of a fight, rather than condemn themselves to being forever second most important in their own city), and even to that of the Carthaginians. As for trade: they were insignificant. They were only as important in international commerce as Massilia, and Massilia has been conclusively ruled out. Anyways, I doubt a faction would be included because "they traded a bunch". This is a war game, not a money game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

I don't see how many other factions could have that much priority over Syracuse. I mean they were clearly a big player in the mediterannean, and just for gameplay purposes i can't think of a more fun starting position and the obstacles that have to be overcome.

You are competing for the master of trade in the Mare against Carthage, for Hellenic dominance against Epeiros, and just in general wary of the rising SPQR. Plus... Hiero and Archimedes!


regardless of their faction-hood, will the Syracusan hoplites have a very unique skin here too? They are the coolest looking hoplite by far, that shield design and their color scheme is beautiful.

---

Syracuse wasn't a big player in the Mediterranean by a long shot, throughout our timeframe they basically sat on their corner of Sicily switching allegiances between the bigger regional powers, who they didn't really have the strength to compete with on their own.

This doesn't necessarily rule them out as a future faction mind you.

Quote:

---

This is a war game, not a money game.

---

you wanted to say: not a TRADE game.

Taking the recent events prior to EB's start date, and looking at the next 50 years or so, I wouldn't call Syracuse a minor dying Mediterranean faction...
Considering the policy "create your history" within the limits of historical accuracy, that made me love and enjoy this mod, Syracuse just gained internal stability and had the chance to consolidate and expand its power...

just because the inherent engine limitations prevent honest trading gameplay like EUIII, it doesn't rule out its significance in history. I play EB as a civ game with awesome fighting, not as a war game solely. I think EB tries very hard to add lots of things just to make the idea that your state is a trading powerhouse fun, like the towns renowned for certain crafts and the prevelance of special trade items on the map. Just seeing your little carriages going about is a cool way of showing that there are people going about their lives amidst your battles. gives your battles meaningful context

As far as my understanding goes the criteria required for a faction to make the EBII list is that they must be expansionist (amongst other things). Syracuse, post 272BC was not expansionist, instead it was constantly on the defensive against first the Carthaginians and then the Romans. Although it was a major regional power (defying both Rome and Carthage and playing a major role in Pyrrhus war) it was not an international power. It remains to be seen whether or not the Syracusan state will be included within a newly restructured KH. Compared to other powers in existence at the time of the EBII timeframe (Pergamon, the Arevaci, the Marcommani, the Belgae, the Numidians, the Pritano/Catuvellaunii) Syracuse was not expansive or international in its influence. If Syracuse were to be included as a faction then Rhodes, the Aetolians, the Masallians, the Palmyrans and the Tarentines would also have to be considered as possible factions.

Agreed that the Greeks are very tough to represent...
But Rhodes is already in the KH (most likely); Massalia had at best a garrison; Palmyra unfortunately emerged later on; Taras was garrisoned by retreating Epirotes I'd say...
Aetolia is another difficult matter, maybe the best choice is having an expanded KH with internal divisions...

We already have the Bosporan Kingdom, which, while being interesting, to my knowledge never played any role at all in any war ever, other than when they were annexed by Pontos. There would not have even been a first Punic War if Hiero hadn't tried to subjugate the Mamertines, and if he had succeeded, Rome probably would have supported him against Carthage.

On the KH front, I'd actually prefer to see it focussed more on the Spartans, the Achaians, and the Aetolians, representing the three major Hellenic powers of our timeframe. Sure, Aetolia wasn't part of the Chremonidean league, but then neither was Rhodos, which was under Ptolemaic rule at the time. As for Athenai, it was hopelessly weak and mostly irrelevant at this point, and a resurgance of power, even among other Hellenes, was highly unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

Sure, Aetolia wasn't part of the Chremonidean league, but then neither was Rhodos, which was under Ptolemaic rule at the time.

---

No it wasn't. Rhodes was independent, or at least as independent as any poleis could be after Alexander. While it was allied to the Ptolemies, it wasn't ruled by them as Cyprus, for example, was. It didn't lose its nominal independence until it was annexed by Rome in 164BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

As far as my understanding goes the criteria required for a faction to make the EBII list is that they must be expansionist (amongst other things).

---

Expansionism was an important requirement for inclusion in EB1, but because of the increased faction-limit the team can stretch things a bit for EB2. The main problem with including Syracuse is the dearth of sources on their post-Alexandrian military. Although Syracuse was the greatest Greek city before (and arguably during) the rise of Athens, by EB's time-frame the city had been sacked repeatedly and was a mere shadow of its former power. The city would certainly have recovered if she had been left alone, but with three expansionist powers interested in Sicily (Carthage, Rome and Epiros under Phyrros) this was never going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

We already have the Bosporan Kingdom, which, while being interesting, to my knowledge never played any role at all in any war ever, other than when they were annexed by Pontos.

---

Given that the Bosporean kingdom was at the edge of the steppe, they must have had constant conflicts with nomadic warlords. That also accounts for the fact that you didn't hear about them: our history is Mediterranean-centred, so they were mostly ignored until they got into conflict with a Mediterranean power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

On the KH front, I'd actually prefer to see it focussed more on the Spartans, the Achaians, and the Aetolians, representing the three major Hellenic powers of our timeframe. Sure, Aetolia wasn't part of the Chremonidean league, but then neither was Rhodos, which was under Ptolemaic rule at the time. As for Athenai, it was hopelessly weak and mostly irrelevant at this point, and a resurgance of power, even among other Hellenes, was highly unlikely.

---

I agree Athens was fairly weak at his point, but so was Sparta. Neither of them had the manpower and finances to take on the new Successor empires. That was part of the reason to combine them into one faction.

Rhodos was included in the KH because it was Ptolemy's main ally in the theatre and given that he funded the KH Rhodos' involvement is a sure bet. I admit the case for the KH as a faction is fairly weak, but the team didn't pull it entirely out of the air. It's certainly stronger than that for an alliance between Sparta, Aetolia and Achaia. Also the Aetolian and Achaian leagues were defensive alliances. I am not sure if they could have embarked on a campaign of conquest even if they wanted to.

Indeed, there is no case for a Sparta-Aetolia-Achaea alliance. The Aetolians and Achaeans were mortal enemies, and the Spartans and Achaeans were mortal enemies. An alliance between the three would be like an alliance between the USA and the USSR during the height of the Cold War: it would never happen in a million years. Also, the Achaean League did not even exist yet at the start date. The Koinon Hellenon, however, actually works as a faction. Just because Athens was weak does not make it suddenly not allied to Sparta. They were both weak, but together they were a power that nearly drove the Macedonians out of Greece.

Yeah, and just for gameplay purposes, its nice to have the 'Greek' faction, as opposed to other Hellenic based factions. It's fun as heck to play as KH, since for me i usually take distant coastal regions, make them colonies, and Hellenize them. It's a really interactive campaign, with the various rebellions and scripted scenarios as well as little things like the Spartan Agoge.

Quote:

---

Indeed, there is no case for a Sparta-Aetolia-Achaea alliance. The Aetolians and Achaeans were mortal enemies, and the Spartans and Achaeans were mortal enemies. An alliance between the three would be like an alliance between the USA and the USSR during the height of the Cold War: it would never happen in a million years. Also, the Achaean League did not even exist yet at the start date. The Koinon Hellenon, however, actually works as a faction. Just because Athens was weak does not make it suddenly not allied to Sparta. They were both weak, but together they were a power that nearly drove the Macedonians out of Greece.

---

more like germany france and GB :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

Yeah, and just for gameplay purposes, its nice to have the 'Greek' faction, as opposed to other Hellenic based factions. It's fun as heck to play as KH, since for me i usually take distant coastal regions, make them colonies, and Hellenize them. It's a really interactive campaign, with the various rebellions and scripted scenarios as well as little things like the Spartan Agoge.

---

I was always reluctant to start a KH campaign, but it turned out to be one of the coolest campaigns ever. You have so many regionals and so many different ennemies. I never pushed the Macs or Epeirotes out of greece but took the west of asia minor, sicily/southern italy, Kyrene, all the eastern islands and the crimean region. So you really can build a naval empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

more like germany france and GB :D

---

You know, that they are really good allies, don't you?

natürlich mein lieber Ziegenpeter,

but all three were mortal enemies most of the time before the second world war and there is still a lot of petty nagging outside of politics, as you "probably" know.
and as far as I know Sparta-Aetolia-Achaea are all members of modern Greece.

the resemblance is just much better than USA and Russia.

http://www.pr0gramm.com/data/images/.../trollface.png

;)

EDIT: I just wanted to be a smart ass, since you never said you meant it historically

mein Gott ist jeder man hier Deutsch ? (Ich lerne immer noch, ich kann so gut wie ein Kind deutsch)

but yeah ziegenpeter it really is cool! your campaign goes all sorts of directions, and for me as well did i not take upper Hellas, but rather expanded myself as a trading/coastal empire. I think everyone of my cities had a port, never went far inland. I loved having Emporion, Massila, Bosporan, Sinope, Rhodes, Syrakuse, etc. None connected by land but by a common culture and my dominant Navy :)

I especially loved when a family member would be born outside of Hellas, they would be sent back to the homeland to participate in the Agoge, always accompanied by one unit of Spartiatai Hoplitai.

anyone who loves greek history (like every historian out there) and can´t get the hang of phalanxs would be screwed in eb without the kh and therefore would probably refuse to play eb

eb is great but a big group of people in here (2nd or 3rd biggest) wuv the kh expecially when you finally get the hang of it and when you feel ready you send your top diplomat to x region and get a free city and a new feel to the game

my best moment in eb i must say was when my diplomat arrive in iberia to get a trade agreament and emporion wich was under carthaginian hands rebelled to me i sent my diplomat to arsé to try and make peace before a batle would happen and arsé rebels to me too and i was like wtf i went into debt but sure as hell it was fun the same for crimeia (sadly now it won´t happen with the bosphorans around)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

my best moment in eb i must say was when my diplomat arrive in iberia to get a trade agreament and emporion wich was under carthaginian hands rebelled to me i sent my diplomat to arsé to try and make peace before a batle would happen and arsé rebels to me too and i was like wtf i went into debt but sure as hell it was fun the same for crimeia (sadly now it won´t happen with the bosphorans around)

---

Furthermore, in M2TW, rebelling cities always joint the Rebels faction. They can no longer rebel to another faction. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

Furthermore, in M2TW, rebelling cities always joint the Rebels faction. They can no longer rebel to another faction. :no:

---

I actually like that. That feature really annoyed me as Saba, forcing me into war with the Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi before I was ready for it.

Well when it happened and it was inconvenient, I sometimes just gave them back their city for a ceasefire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

I actually like that. That feature really annoyed me as Saba, forcing me into war with the Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi before I was ready for it.

---

An aspect of the game made even worse by the fact that there are no recruitable generals available so you have no chance of hiring a band of mercenaries to defend the city, and you've got no chance of either moving an army there in time or recruiting a reasonable garrison before the Ptolies or Selecids attacked...

yep, holding many Arabian and Ethiopian lands with a level 4 is pretty impractical since you can't hire anyone, yet they are often too far to send a fm. the palmyra and other revolting garrisons are only good for destroying whatever is in there for the money and taking the revolting garrison on a killing spree in the region, as there is no way possible to hold on to it without great headache and you sure as heck aint gonna be able to send relief across the arabian desert.

tell me about it, "currently" I'm relying on client rulers imported by ship to keep peace in arabia.

hopefully this will be addressed in EBII. Saba has such great potential as a really really fun faction.

They could address it by adding the Nabatu. Those cities would rebel to them, and unlike the Sab'yn, the Nabatu are right next door.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

LOL, I just found this hilarious post in this thread!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Fecking hell! We are not doing a jewish faction. A minor kingdom that didn't even appear until way into our timeperiod. Please. Their importance historically and religiously masks their unimportance politically during our timeframe.

We have stated over and over again that all factions will be playable, thus making emerging factions off the table. Please, please, please do not force us to repeat ourselves over and over again. Read a little of the steles, they do actually hold information.

Foot

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

They could address it by adding the Nabatu. Those cities would rebel to them, and unlike the Sab'yn, the Nabatu are right next door.

---

You've already commented on the post that states quite clearly that provinces rebel to the slave faction at all times. Therefore we would not need to include the Nabatu in some fashion to stop this from happening.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

An aspect of the game made even worse by the fact that there are no recruitable generals available so you have no chance of hiring a band of mercenaries to defend the city, and you've got no chance of either moving an army there in time or recruiting a reasonable garrison before the Ptolies or Selecids attacked...

---

? I've been able to recruit generals in my Saba campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuchip

? I've been able to recruit generals in my Saba campaign.

---

Not in Gerrha, Petra, Bostra or Axum because....there aren't any available.

and those are important places. you can get Greeks farther up the Nile, but i guess they didn't want to go down to ethiopia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Not in Gerrha, Petra, Bostra or Axum because....there aren't any available.

---

Oh ok, yea the only one of those cities I've conquered was Axum and I built a type 1 right from the start, so my bad.

off topic:
This issue will be addressed in EB1.3

1.3!!!! Sweet ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

off topic:
This issue will be addressed in EB1.3

---

Now....there's a nice little surprise. Wasn't expecting that...

woah was NOT expecting that at all

So, when will 1.3 be released? Can you give us a date?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And will there be Lorica Segementa?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:skull:

When it is done.
EB1.3 is a side project with minor significance, all manpower goes into EB2, I'm sure you support this cause of action.
Furthermore there won't be new content, it will just combine the fixes for 1.2 and some other stuff we noticed.

Now please back to topic.

XSamatan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

When it is done.
EB1.3 is a side project with minor significance, all manpower goes into EB2, I'm sure you support this cause of action.
Furthermore there won't be new content, it will just combine the fixes for 1.2 and some other stuff we noticed.

Now please back to topic.

XSamatan

---

Sorry, but you cannot drop such a bomb and then ask us to go back to topic:laugh4:
what would this "other stuff" you mentioned be...?

Unless you are performing trolling at its perfection.

Just misspellings in text files, the mentioned added client ruler recruitment, minor bugs.

I should have had my mouth closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

Just misspellings in text files, the mentioned added client ruler recruitment, minor bugs.

I should have had my mouth closed.

---

Not at all, I certainly wasn't expecting it to be a great re-write (EB2, as you say, comes first) - its just nice to know that these little things are going to be addressed. No biggie, but cheers all the same.