Printable View
If you want to make it harder for the Sweboz you could add the Heruskoz tribe whom were basically the forerunners of the Franks. They were pretty major around the 1st Century AD under Arminius. They halted Roman advance in Germania. I dont see why you havent already gottem
You just answered your own question. They were a major power outside EBs time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
By what I know of Scandinavian history of the relevant period, a faction based up here would be more or less Right Out for the exact same reasons as all the Baltic and mainland Germanic tribes except the Sweboz - Way Too Small And Unorganized(tm). Heck, in the northern part of the region hunter-gatherers were still the norm...
An utter backwater is an utter backwater, no two ways about it.
Methinks something in the somewhat empty Ukraine/Crimea region would be interesting, like maybe the Scythian remnants or the Crimean cities. Unless that nerfed the Sauromatae too badly of course...
Well, you could make it so that the faction doesn't have a family tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Etruscans? They still had a little bit of power in Northern Etruria at 272BC
Volsinii fell to the Romans in 265BC
plus they had a unique culture, language and military you could give 'em a city or two
264BC sorry
Damn you got it :/Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
What about a north african faction like Meroe? It wasn't conquered by Greeks nor was it by Romans and it was an unique civilisation with ancient Egyptian traditions. :egypt:
Did they expand, or, at the very least, attempt to do so? If not, then they're automatically disqualified, according to the criteria I've seen various team members use in explaining the inclusion of factions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Yeah, definitely not Meroe. They didn't have the military capability - completely below the military horizon.
That's unfair. Lusonattan did not expand as well. Meroe certainly had the military capapability. I've found this in Wikipedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Rome's capture of Egypt led to border clashes and expansion by both Meroë and Rome. Meroë usually came off the better, even looting a head from a statue of the emperor Augustus and burying it under their temple steps.
And to their economy:
Meroë was the base of a flourishing kingdom whose wealth was due to strong iron industry, plus an international trade involving India and China. At the time, iron was one of the most researched metals worldwide, and Meroitic metalworkers were among the best in the world.. Meroë also exported textiles and jewelry. Textiles were based on cotton, and working on it reached its achievement in Nubia around 400BC. Furthermore, Nubia was very rich in gold.
And Meroe also fits into EB timeframe (The capital of Kushite kingdom moved from Napata to Meroe in 300BC).
I reckon you should include the Hattoz(Chatti) and Heruskoz(Cherusci) because they were in the same boat as the Aedui and Arverni being arch nemesis. It would be a nice setup having Aedui fighting it out with the Arverni, and then them fighting the Belgae as well, and then up in Germania having the Hattoz and Heruskoz in an eternal struggle with the Sweboz there as well.
Im pretty sure you'll have the Belgae, but just keep in mind the Hattoz and Heruskoz as well.
Your time frames somewhere between 272BC-14AD isn't it? Therefore they'd just fit in the time frame.
I know a fair bit about them too if youd want some info.
You'd do well to speak only of what you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Long live the wikipedia generation.
You could have just written "I want a black faction".Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
And Wikipedia? That's a magnet for afro-centrists, nationalists, revisionalists, nazi, white supremacists etc. Although their Nubia article doesn't seem affected by it, however Nubians basically had two types of troops. Archers & Spearmen. And their only interest was to keep Nubia secure, even though they did clash with the Ptolemies & Romans.
And Lusitanians? They gave the Romans a run for their money, so much that Iberia was virtually Rome's Vietnam for over 200 years.
There are simply other factions more deserving a spot atm, but if we had more than 30 faction slots Meroe would very likely be among those.
From this side it seems that there is a rule "No black factions".Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Well, I'm not an afro-centrist, nationalist, revisionalist, nazi or white supremacist. And to Meroe unit roster: You could simplify every faction to basic units. Rome=legionaries, Successor=phallanx + cavalery... But I see there is no will to find out more about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Lusitanians were defeated, Meroe wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
I really think Meroe would deserve one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Nope, but we don't include factions on the grounds that it would be cool or that it would be politically correct to represent all ethnicities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
He wasn't saying you were. He was saying that evidence from wikipedia really has no place in this discussion. And we certainly are interested in Meroe, we've had the discussion I believe, but it was decided that due to the lack of evidence we couldn't make any differentiation in the military beyond archer and spearmen.Quote:
Well, I'm not an afro-centrist, nationalist, revisionalist, nazi or white supremacist. And to Meroe unit roster: You could simplify every faction to basic units. Rome=legionaries, Successor=phallanx + cavalery... But I see there is no will to find out more about them.
Because the Lusotannan were constantly attacked for 200 years by the Roman military machine. The same wasn't true of Meroe.Quote:
Lusitanians were defeated, Meroe wasn't.
Based on what? It seems that you've only read wikipedia. Get some proper books on the subject and then come back.Quote:
I really think Meroe would deserve one of them.
Foot
OK, I agree that my knowledge on this subject is rather limited.
It seems that it has already been decided which factions will go to EB2.
For the most part, they have been decided. Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Foot
So which new factions will be in EB2? Or is it another TOP SECRET issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Well we're not going to tell the fans! That's preview material, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Foot
Really hope that you aren't going to do any mistakes with them.
BTW, heres my unfinished faction list::smug2:
German fact. - Ubii, Teutons, Goths, Suevi;
Gaullic fact. - Aedui, Arverni, Belgae, Ligures;
Spain - Lusitans, Iberi, Celtiberi;
Africa - Carthage, Numidia, Egypt;
Italia - 2 Roman factions (like optimates and democrats, to allow civil war);
Greece - Macedonia, Epirus, Greek_cities (????);
East- Seleucids, Pontus, Armenia, Parthia, Pergumum, Bactria;
Others- Dacia, Scythia, Sarmatia, Britons, Illyria.
UNFINISHED
Date 272 b.c.
We will not include a second Roman faction at the expense of another full playable faction. Its just not something we will do in EB unless the hard-coded limits were raised drastically. I understand the appeal of a Roman civil war, but its just not fair to other factions.
This was just my faction list, which I plans to include in my mod (which is suddenly again is EB unofficial modding project~:wave: ). I would like you to look at my barbarian factions.
Huh?!
-You don't seem to have heard of the 30 faction limit.
-Why do you post your own daughter mod info in a thread aimed at speculating about the mother mod? Why not create a thread of your own? Save's me the :inquisitive:
-And for that matter why work on such things if you don't know what part of your work will be covered by EB already before you start on it? Even more important: you don't know what your platform (EB mod) is going to be like as far as the technical matters go. So you don't have a basis to work on - and won't have for quite some time because we haven't given any such things away yet.
Conclusion: it's a lil' early for creating your own minimod on top of a mod that's not out yet...
As far as your faction list goes:
-I very much enjoy the EB style of naming things like their respective owners would've done back then; and you happen to chose that awful Latinized version pack of the orginials. But that's matter of taste.
-As far as your new factions go: you've plunged into some of the most difficult to research; and you have shifted the emphasis very strongly to Western Europe. This means that many of your factions might just end up decimating each other instead of giving the Eleutheroi a different colour from dirt white.
-I don't know much about them; so can't comment on them any further, really.
But I'll reply anyway ...:inquisitive:Quote:
-I don't know much about them; so can't comment on them any further, really.
Oops... removed can be Sarmatia.Quote:
-You don't seem to have heard of the 30 faction limit.
To help you - don't you see? Why post mine thread if main mod only in developing..Quote:
-Why do you post your own daughter mod info in a thread aimed at speculating about the mother mod? Why not create a thread of your own? Save's me the
I'm sure you're going to mod M2TW, don't you?:grin: Basis and all necessary will be when you did your job. My work now is research, that's what I'm doing right now.Quote:
-And for that matter why work on such things if you don't know what part of your work will be covered by EB already before you start on it? Even more important: you don't know what your platform (EB mod) is going to be like as far as the technical matters go. So you don't have a basis to work on - and won't have for quite some time because we haven't given any such things away yet.
Yes, I will use Latin. names. As I said my mod going to be more friendly to average gamer. (Also I don't know how new factions will be named in your style)Quote:
-I very much enjoy the EB style of naming things like their respective owners would've done back then; and you happen to chose that awful Latinized version pack of the orginials. But that's matter of taste.
Hm, maybe I should give you map_regions(not made yet) to evidently show appointment of all new factions? Most important factions are :Quote:
-As far as your new factions go: you've plunged into some of the most difficult to research; and you have shifted the emphasis very strongly to Western Europe. This means that many of your factions might just end up decimating each other instead of giving the Eleutheroi a different colour from dirt white.
Illyria (to prevent expand Epirus, Romans, Macedonia on a north; and Dacians to the west);
Ligures ( to allow romans fight cisalpine gaul, but don't hurt main gauls);
...................rest factions was added to simulate regional power, or culture centre (if we have slots).
For example germans :
West-germans (main tribes - Suevi (Germinones, don't know exactly name), Teutons (Ingevones), Ubii (Istevones, more cultural);
East-germans : Goths;
I skipped Scandinavian germans.
As of moving emphasis to the west - east contains less factions but they are huge, west contains more factions which aren't so powerful. From what I've learn this was in real life...:inquisitive:
I have to agree with the new African faction idea. So much empty space! And, if I'm not mistaken, even Rome in all of it's glory had problems holding North Africa west of Egypt.
Which is why if Meroe is not being implemented that there should be the two numidian factions. From what I read they were a thorn in both rome and carthages backsides
No, this backsides was in almost every country. If we have unlimited faction list, then even each tribe separately, but we haven't...:wall:
The problem with Meroe is that their unit selection would be very poor, and they would be quickly dominated by the Ptolemies. Not a very good choice for game balance.
In my eyes these are the new factions you should have
1.Heruskoz= Made Rome think twice about conquering Germania. Were very good at ambushing. They were led by formidibale warlords called Drighten.
Were rivals of the Hattoz just like the Aedui and Arverni
Settlements= Askalingaz(Minden), Ermanarazul?(Irminseoul)CAP
2.Hattoz= Said to have infantry to match the Romans in terms of discipline.
The Batavi tribe (subtribe of Chatti) had amphibious cavalry and the Chatti were learned in trenching. They differed to other Germans because of there manner of fighting and traditions. They didnt involve themselves in petty squabbles but made fullscale campaigns.
Settlements=[Mattium](Kassel)CAP, [Arctaunum](?)
3.Belgae= I think they will be in it. They were said to be the least developed but the bravest of the Celts. The Nervii had a Spartan-like culture so it would be cool to use some of their units.
Settlements=Bagacos CAP, Bratosporios
4.Iberians= A culture unique to Celt-iberian, Celtic, Greek etc. Had there own language. Might be hard representing a united force though, but keep in mind. Best reprentation would probably be a post-Tartessian people (Turdetani) leading them, not a warlike people but probably the most civilized. With the Conii in the alliance
Would be substancialy wealthy due to their silver mines. And for gods sake give the Carthaginians less land in Iberia. A lot of the land you gave them at 272BC they didnt own, they had influence over it, but they didnt own it until Hannibal
Settlements=Carpia(succesor to Tartessos)CAP, Conistorgis
5.Odrysae Thraikians= Were driven into the Bosporus in 273BC by the Celts. Made a comeback and took Thrace bak in 214BC under the king Pleuratus. Would have some unique units. Daco/Getic,Hellenic/Illyrian influenced culture.
NOTE: were different to the Getae brood
Settlements(to start with)= town on the black sea, Olbia? something accurate.
would be expected to to take Tylis and Uskudama(traditional odrysae capital) from the Celts
6.Numidians= The Massyli really. They were allied to Carthage and help them against Rome. Then in the Second Punic War allied to Rome. Massinissa was a Massyli king and owned all Numidia at one time (148BC). Eventually the Romans tried to conquer them under Jugurtha. Though outnumbered the Numidians gave the Romans hell until they captured him.
Settlements=Cirta CAP, Theveste, Siga
7.Illyrians= under the old Pleuratus(of illyria) succeded by Agron 250BC. They ruled over a united Illyria with the capital at Skodra under the master tribe the Ardiaei. They were a thorn in the sides of the Epirotes, Macedonians, Romans etc until they were conquered in 168BC
Settlements= Skodra CAP, Epidamnos
8..Boii/Baio-warioz [warriors]= Celto/Germanic influenced culture centered around the Danube in Boio-haemum[Bohemia]. Some moved from here and settled Cisalpine Gaul and Pannonia. They fought the Sweboz subtribe the Markomannoz and the Dacians under Burebistus. They were known to be particularly savage and always fighting. When Hannibal defeated L.Postumius Albinus hids Boii allies turned his skull into a drinking cup. In the 2nd Century BC they turned back the Teutons and Cimbri.
Settlements=Boiodurum (gate/fort of the Boii, modern Passau) CAP, Eburonum?
9.Galatae= Not one of my favourites, but they did alter history in Anatolia, at one point owning much of central and east Anatolia. They would start under the kings Leotarios and Leonnorios. And would be made up of the Tectosages, the Trocmii, and the Tolistobogii. They were much feared mercenaries in the east often swaying the tides of battles. a unique government too.
Settlements=Ancyra CAP, Pessinus, Tavium
10.Etruscans= Originally an expansionast league under 12 cities. But because of Celtic and Roman wars it declined. In 272BC they are a waning power with only one city and an outpost in North Etruria. They had a rich culture, language and military. The last Etruscan city was taken in 265BC. The culture was Italic/Hellenic. Due to gameplay reasons I see why you may not include it but I still think they would be a good addition to the game.
Settlements= Velzna [Volsinii] CAP, Tular [Tuder]
or
10.Erain= something to represent the unique Gaels and challenge the Casse
I dont know much about them.
Settlements= Emain Macha?
In order to accomodate for these factions changes should should be made to original factions
Sweboz factions should be given another settlement (Leufana, modern day Luneburg)
and the Casse too should receive another settlement. In fact all factions should have at least 2 settlements so they dont get steamrolled by factions close to them.
(and please try and increase the settlement limit I know youre doin your best just keep goin at it.)
Cheers plz feed back
........pant
More poor then Saba? I think there are enough east arican units to make a faction: Ethiopian spearmen, Aithiopikon Agema, Elephantes... And I can imagine also Nubian archers, skirmishers and light cavalery. Later after the conquest of Egypt they could get Egyptian and Hellenic units or they could expand to Arabia and get some Arabian regionals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
In almost every game I've played the Ptolemies crushed the Seleucids and started endless wars with Bactria or Carthage. I think the game needs a faction that would weaken Ptolemies.
... or immediately get crushed by them...:martass:Quote:
I think the game needs a faction that would weaken Ptolemies.
Not if led by wise and brave general (like me :laugh4: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
Nubians didn't use elephants until much later and that was after they saw Ptolemaic use of them. And you're listing Ethiopians who are not Nubians and in fact seems to have disliked Nubians intensely and vice versa. Aithiopikon Agema btw should be axed for the next release as the sources used to create the unit came under fire in a scholarly journal (yes EB can make mistakes) and units like that were apparently only around during the final days of the Ptolemaic kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
You can imagine? You obviously don't care about historical accuracy. This is just I want a 'black faction' over again. You expect us to include Meroe and just invent units?
As I told another guy who desperately wanted a Scandinavian faction in, is that if you collect information, sources, evidences etc. be they textual or, archaeological that shows why Meroe ought to get a spot then we will gladly hear it.
Yeah... that isn't going to cut it. To add to what Krusader said, you're strongly delving into unfair conjecture by just listing off units you would think they should have rather than what they did - including the thought that they could somehow recruit Hellenics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Like I mentioned - this region is well below the military horizon. There is no way they would be able to do much to worry the Ptolemaioi. I doubt they had the logistical know-how to even create a field army, let alone march it north, and then somehow actually defeat a Ptolemaic army. They wouldn't have the tactics or the fighting styles capable of doing that. They would just simply be skewered by the phalanx.
If the Ptolemaioi need to be weakened, feel free to mod a higher rebel spawn rate for the region or something instead.
That's a pity, I really liked those guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Actually I care about historical accuracy, but I have read in some previous thread that "where there are no historical evidences, there comes logic". How did Nubians beat Romans if they used only spears and arrows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
But I see that without any historical sources it is impossible to persuade you, so I :surrender2: .
Yeah, logic is important to move from evidence to something that can be used ingame, but this is for individual things, not for the creation of an entire faction's unit roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Foot
By being bloody hard to reach and not worth the effort ? It's not like Pharaonic Egypt had had a particularly easy time campaigning there either, simply because of terrain and distance, IIRC. And the locals were quite clever enough to not obligingly come out of the hills to get trampled flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
I imagine it's awfully hot in that part of Africa.
I was wondering what the developers thought of my faction list? Give me some comments or feedback on it.
Possible candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
As I understood the Hattoz or Chatti were first mentioned around 120-150 BC (cant remember specific date) in textual sources and also by what our historians said there havent been any archaeological findings dating the Hattoz to the Hessen area (where Kassel is I recall).Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
They were powerful at 272 BC but began to decline shorty thereafter, however they are still being considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Actually there are many other Iberian tribes that are also possible, although if an Iberian tribe is included it will most probably be a Celtiberian one.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
The Thracians will probably not be included due to many factions surrounding them. Also, by my recollection there weren't large enough kingdoms post-272 that were capable of launching outright invasions of other non-Thracian kingdoms. But main reason is it would be very hard, plus we cant give them Odrysai region due to Tylis being a Celtic city at game start.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Will probably make it in...but we are debating if Massylia or Masaesylia is the good Numidian choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Possible candidate. Not discussed much but they were a thorn in their neighbours' side, more so than the Thracians it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Also a hotly debated candidate. Would be the Central European Boii, not those in northern Italy.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Asia Minor is packed, but Galatians are being discussed. At this point of time though they'd be in a faction together with Bithynia.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Really don't think the Etruscans is a viable faction at this time due to them being conquered only 7 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
These guys are a possible candidate too.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Some you forgot though:
Pergamon
Bithynia
Syracuse
Bastarnae
Bosphoran Greeks
Massagetae
Brigantes/Brigantines
Aquitanii
Mauretanians
Nabataea
Caucasian Iberia
Lugians
----------------
We'd want to tell you our faction choices...but alas we need preview material. :wink:
When there are no previews or such in a mod forum people believe it's dead.
Just guessing which new factions will be in EB2:
1.Bosphoran Kingdom
2.Belgii
3.Heruskoz
4.Boii
5.Syracuse
6.Caucasian Iberia
7.Massylia or Masaesylia
8.Errain
9.Pergamon
10.Galatians
Tell me if I was close ~:) .
Thanks Krusader for giving me some feedback. I have some questions about the responses you gave. You said that you may include a Celt-Iberian faction in EB 2? From the literature i've read the Lusotannon were either a Celt-iberian tribe or heavily influenced by the Celt-Iberians. It may not be wise to include a Celt-Iberian tribe when you can include a culture and people completely different like the native Iberians? Your probably thinking of the Celtiberians centered at Numantia or Okilis with the master tribe the Arevaci arent you. Give us some feedback
The Reasons I Dont want and/or think these factions should be in it are.
Pergamon: This one was actually borderline in my mind. It was a rump state left after Lysimachus' Hellenistic Thracian kingdom broke up, I recall. They would be like most of the other successor kingdoms though I feel. Also they would start the game with just one settlement, It might just look too good to the Arche Seleukids, Greeks, Makedonians, Ptolemaioi and Pontos. Too much against it in my eyes. Unless you dont have the Galatae, Leave it on the cutting floor.
Bithynia: I'd have my Thracian kingdom I guess, but probably has the same sorta problems as Pergamon
Syracuse: Look forget about it. It's been said before, but the idea of a Syracuse faction annoys me so much. The Carthaginians and the Romans would just obliterate them. Then you've got expansion problems etc. I'd also imagine it would be difficult making a unique unit rooster for a faction that probably fought identically to the Greeks.
Bastarnae: This would be really tricky since you probably dont have much in regards to information on these people and what you do have is very unreliable since a lot of it is still questionable or obscure. It'd be hard finding out where they lived at 272BC let alone making a faction out of them
Bosphoran Greeks: This one is also borderline on my mind. I actually really wouldn't mind them in the game. They would be a good mix of Hellenic/Scythian/Eastern culture I'd guess. There's also plenty of information on them too. Puttem in instead of the Etruscans:beam:
Massagetae: Correct me if I'm wrong but the Massagetae were the same as the Alans who were the same as the Aorsi who were part of the loose Sauromatae confederation. Probably not a good idea including just one of the Sauromatae tribes when you could include any of them; Roxolani, Iazyges etc
Brigantes/Brigantines: Would be good, but they would either be destroyed or destroy the Casse early in the game.
Aquitanii: No, I dont think so. They were very similar to the Aedui and Arverni. I think a third player in Gaul wouldn't be wise. I can just imagine playing as the Aedui and fighting clone wars with the Arverni, Aquitanii and Casse. Not fun and not worth it.
Mauretanians: If you're thinking of having a Numidian faction, stick a knife in it. They didn't much of an impact on history in africa or history as whole.
Nabataea: Might be good owning Petra and Aelana but I cant help but feel they would quickly be dispatched by the Ptolemaoi and Seleukids
Caucasian Iberia: little room for expansion with more major kingdoms like Armenia and Pontos nearby. and little impact on history.
Lugians: A Celto-Germanic people I think. The Boii would be a better choice though. More information on Boii than the mysterious 'forest peoples' the Lugii
Pick the Hattoz instead:2thumbsup:
I very much doubt they have very many "shoo-in" candidates with the number of factions they have already. Honestly, some of the factions already in are probably of debatable importance and impact. We can't expect the EB team to conjure up something as important as Roma or Kart-Hadast at this point...well, unless they finally include Bartix, that is. Fricking travesty that they aren't in EB1:furious3:
I myself am not too concerned with difficulty as much as I am with flavor. I like experiencing the new and exciting. I very much do play EB in part to LEARN...
So...
Bithynia
Bastarnae
Bosphoran Greeks
Brigantes/Brigantines
Nabataea
Lugians
Heruskoz
Belgae
Celtibrians
Numidians
Boii
Galatae
These are most interesting to me. Of course, I'm not worried because I trust that everything will be as full of historical flavor as the originals.
Actually most of the new factions have already been decided on ;)
Not much to say, but this is inaccurate. The Aquitanians have material evidence of being more akin to Celtiberians and northern Iberians in some regions, with Gauls in the north; they spoke a different language than the Gauls and left a good bit of different material culture. They'd not be super unique, but they'd hardly be the same as the Aedui and Arverni.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
Well there's something I didn't know. Thank you for picking me up on that. I thought that because they lived in Gaul they would've shared many of the same attributes the Arverni and Aedui did. I knew they would've been Iberian influenced, but do you really think that they are really that unique and/or important to be considered as a faction?
I would like the following factions in Eb if possible or plausible:
Galatia
Syracuse
Massyli
Belgae
Erain/Brigantes
Bosphorans
Celtiberians
How many?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
8 of 10Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Foot
I would love to see the "kingdom of Axum" in the upcoming mod. it would be just perfect.
Not really. Axum didn't exist until many centuries later.Quote:
Originally Posted by the Abyssinian
Would it be possible to make a poll with the candidates for the remaining 2 new factions?
It was a little more than a "rump state" under the Attalids, friend, eventually gaining control of a large portion of western asia minor.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
I doubt the Syracuseans would be push-overs as you suggest. I do agree that it would be hard to make a unique unit line up for them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by azzbaz
NopeQuote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
Bosphorans, Numidian and Boii in Central Europe: the map actually needs the Bosphorans and Boii for gameplay reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
And someone said Numidia didn't have an effect on history? I'll hold off my scathing comments. I promised I'd be nice.
And how come now one ever mentions my faction: Euzkadi!
Talk about impact on history: We're still around!
Numidia? As a unified faction it should not be included, but I'd definitely love to see a particular tribe with a similar mechanism to what was previewed for Hayasdan recently (though the same hope goes for a number of more disjointed factions).Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
I've seen mention of the Aquitani, though that's as close as I'd assume it'd get to including some kind of Basque faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
I think map needs Scythia instead of Bosphorans.Quote:
Bosphorans, Numidian and Boii in Central Europe: the map actually needs the Bosphorans and Boii for gameplay reasons.
Why? It wouldn't be so big difference...Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
Ugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Precisas de ir á casa de banho?
Só se for para te cagar em cima.
Are there any candidates for new factions in eastern Europe?
The Boii. Developed cities and fortresses, advanced concept of kingship, advanced developments for war, prolific traders, ran large mints. The only one I can think of in eastern Europe as being definitely possible, but the Lugians might be possible. But, there's talk about how well they'd work and all.
I hope you guys added another steppe faction . I would love some crazy horse archer vs . horse archer battles .
So, why not a Basque faction? They had been there for thousands of years and are still there thousands of years after.
They destroyed Charlemagne's rear guard, the Suebi literally ran through to Galicia, so did the Vandals. The Romans never left the fort in Pamplona. Basques even joined the legions and stood on Hadrians wall. The Moors were sleeping in Portuguese and Spanish homes, but couldn't stay in Euskal Herria overnight. There's a reason the Gallic tribes went to the Po and not the Ebro.
They would be among the strongest ambushers in the game. Strong javelins, iron axes, oak shields and big men (well, compared to Lusotannians and Carthaginians, anyway...)
You guys always talk about wishing there was more going on in Iberia...
Well, the balares could be a similar option, romans feared them in the forests so much that they burned down half central sardinia rather than having to assault nuraghe after nuraghe...
Between the punic wars they were the de facto owners of Sardinia, carthaginians being kicked out by mercenaries and balares kicking the mercenaries out until the romans came.
I have great admiration for the people that inhabited the area, and that's the sole reason I'm responding to this, and stepping into a nationalistic swamp. While we like to think that all these people were the same as the modern Basques there is no direct evidence that it is so. Even if the toponomy strongly suggests it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
There was no such thing as "Basques" in our time period. What you did have was a number of people that spoke a similar language (that was no where near unified in medieval times, or until modern times, so much less then) and shared a loose common ancestry. Now these people were spread throughout this side of the Pyrenees - the Tarbelli, the Caristii, or the Vardulli - and the other - the Ausci, the Volcates or the Vasates. The most important of all these people were the Vascones of course, that migrate south the Ebro Valley during a few centuries, but occupy a relatively small area of really useful land (the Romans would establish in this area, and then keep some ports and mining operations north).
The Celts not only crossed the Ebro, they settled there or influenced a lot of tribes in that area. You have the Celtiberians right there, and the Cantabri just to their left, not to mention the Ilergetes that were if not Celtiberian at the very least Celticized Iberians. They might not have been Celts per se, but don't underestimate Celtic influence there. The Aquitani had quite a few of these tribes under their thumb.
Besides the usual raiding done by this type of tribes, they made nothing worth of deserving a faction slot during our period, They even seem to have negotiated their way into the Roman Empire by providing auxiliaries to it. Only much later are they referred to collectively as Vascones.
Big men? :dizzy2:
:book: Yes. So you're saying your minds made up then?
Additionally I would prefere following factions (All German Names):
1. Central Europe: 1 Tribe in the East of Germany
Possible: Rugier; Langobarden; Burgunder; Reudinger; Kimbern;
Cherusker; Chauken; Gauten (Goten), Chatten, Quaden
1 Tribe in the Region of the Alps
Possible: Helviter, Taurisker, Hermunduren, Skordisker,
Bojer, Volscer, Dardaner
2. Eastern Europe: 1 Tribe in the Region of the Vistula River
Possible: Any Slavic Tribe, Ästier (early Baltics), Bastarner
3. Balcan Peninsula: 1 Tribe/State at the Adrian coast
Possible: The Illyrians (Works quite well on RTR)
1 Tribe/State in Thracia
Possible: Thraker (Celtic Empire of Tylis)
4. Asia Minor : 1 Tribe in the West of Asia Minor
Possible: The State of Rhodos, Bythinia, Cappadocia
And the southern coast belonging to the Ptolemy Empiire
5. Greece : Dividing the Koinon Hellenon into the Factions of Aetolia,
Achäa and Rhodos.
6. Africa : 3 States - The Kingdoms of Numidia and Mauretania and
Meroe
7. East : 2 States - The Mauryan Empire in India
The Sarmatians (Settlements int the East)
8. Spain : 1 Tribe - Any Iberian Tribe
Most likely not each of these has got to be a playable faction.
Additionally (If I got it right the unplayable factions are not as limited) the playable factions could include smaller states like:
Massilia and Syracuse
Such states give a much more realistic atmosphere.
Eventually the Yüeh Jin could be triggered as a horde, which appears at a historical accurate time.
A great thing would be having the Optimates or the Populares as a Roman Rebel faction (depending on which kind of policy you choose) It would make sense that only the rebelling generals and their troops (like pompey and caesar and their legions).
And please: Rework, the Roman Names in the family tree!
For in your system e.g. :
Gnaes Pompeius Magnus son becomes Quintus Tullius Magnus - the cognome is the name that is heired!
In reality it would have been:
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus son becomes Quintus Pompeius + a random name (the cognomen!)
This has already been done. The next release will have massively complete Roman names that are accurate and work correctly. Coming soon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrius_Aurelius_Magnus
@MarcusAureliusAntonius
What about the Female names?
Like Marcus Tullios daughter would be called Tullia and so on?
What about my other "Beggings" ànd "Wishes"???
Names given by the engine, such as first names and female names are completely random. In the new naming system, names are given by 'ethnicity' traits, so females will only have random first names.
One of the criteria of a faction in EB/EB2 is that it is playable. For this reason, minor factions and rebel factions are not being considered. Also things that have been decided that won't go in: 2- factions on the edge of the map that would have territory outside of the map or would want to expand outside of the map, such as Eithiopia, India, or Scandinavia; 3- dividing up the Koinon Hellenon; 4- factions outside of the time frame, such as Yuezhi or a Germanic tribe that comes to great power 100-200 years after the start date.
I'm not sure about your list, most of those seem insignifigant, non-descript, or fit into one of the above. And for a few, I'm not entirely sure of the Latin name...
You guys decide on which Numidian faction yet?
Sounds quite reasonable. Realistic Roman Names Would be a great thing.
But why don't you us the unplayable factions? This would add a very realistic feature - Just like the Hordes that invaded Europe over and over again.
So what do you think about the inner-roman options? Rebel-Armies as Populares or Optimates (choosing which side you're on).
What about the Senat? (Not as a faction, but as a brief overview over the Romans inside?)
Does "Scandinavia" include modern day Denmark or just the scandinavian peninsula?
And why wouldn't other factions have such a similar thing? The Aedui would, as would Carthage. We could definately use something like that for Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi. In the end we would just have every faction with a shadow faction. And if we chose just one it would be an act of favouritism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrius_Aurelius_Magnus
We won't have unplayable factions. In other words.
Foot
Absolutely the only unplayable faction I'd like to see and think could be justified due to importance and emergence due to factors largely outside the map would be the Yuezhi. But I agree with the lack of other emerging factions inside the EB borders.