In order of personal importance:
1. Syracuse
2. Pergamon
3. Bosphoran Kingdom
4. Galatians
5. Celtiberians
6. Kingdom of Noricum
Printable View
In order of personal importance:
1. Syracuse
2. Pergamon
3. Bosphoran Kingdom
4. Galatians
5. Celtiberians
6. Kingdom of Noricum
I still would like to see a northern faction put in... In like Sweden/Norway; Plus it would help balance the Germanic tribe to the south; and give them a fight so they don't have an easy fight with rebels for most of the game. Which was easy in the RTW version. And another questions.Who where the "vah-jynas* peoples*" I cant find a single thing about them any where.
oh sheesh. ^
I'm seeing some nice faction ideas, but we're not choosing factions based on the number of times people name them--we need good information, archaeological finds, mentions in ancient texts. If you really want to see a particular faction in EB2, that's what we'll need to see.
I don't quite understand why SouthernTrendKill's post upset you so much.
Also, this is kind-of off-topic, but as people keep talking about more factions for North Africa, what was going on historically in the rest of Africa in this time period? In other words, if you were to extend the EB map to include all of Africa, down to what is now South Africa - I'm speaking entirely theoretically here, of course - would there be any major civilizations you could include? Or was it very divided and fractured?
I like Caledonian Rhyfelwyr's list of new factions, he gets my vote :laugh4:
essentially very little!Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
:laugh4:
Pronounce the name of these "people" a few times and you will be enlightend. :clown:
Ok, good solid facts is what you want, then well here is a start... Well the were settlements in Sweden and Norway as far back as 7500 BC and slowly moved southward creating what we now call Germany. Many of the people there lived mostly like Germanic people; They farmers, hunters, and were woodsmen. There is a start for who they are and what life might have been like.
(and might be of some help with units) they were also apart of the battle ax culture.
For religion, I am not to sure as to what for there apparently is little found on Nordic culture. But what I have found is that they widely worshiped a female Mother god "Hertha" which was widely know in there areas. They mostly would be god related to Norse mythology; Thor, Woden etc... Germanic tribes also were closely related has to religion at the time.
I can find more, but thats just what I have for right now.
Fuck'n A, I feel dumb as shit! YES I AM NOW ENLIGHTENED!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by dezzerx
I was sleepy when I was reading it last night.
Well, also to add on to the Scandinavian areas, geography, and life style: There was actually large amounts of iron mines. So there was plenty of metal working, and they did make weapons/tools etc ya ya ya. To add they were also a very war like people. When some of the people moved southward they usually fought who ever they would meet. And this game starting around 300BC don't give much time for Germanic tribes, because they weren't very powerful until later. And at that time, that was the mid point of the migration. So the Germanic peoples and Scandinavians to the north would be close on almost every thing. And like I said it might also give balance to the Sewboz in EB.
Classic. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
Damn Right It's A Classic!!! 2+2=5
Well, doing some research my self on these.. "vah-jyna people" I have discovered many of them came in contact with the mighty "Cockasias" in the late org-azim age, with them raping and plundering of them all... so sad...
I found most of my research very adult, :book: and quite interesting....:laugh4:
good thread, a lot of "if"s. :dizzy2: I was thinking, is it possible (now i might have stolen this from somewhere, i dont remember) if there was a faction that represented the "free kingdoms". Something apart from the rebel faction. Maybe even break it down into.. lets say free greek colonies, free african nations.. ect. I think breaking it down would be way too much but a free nations might make the "rebel" areas more hostile to players. Of course you can still have the rebel faction that comprises of brigands, pirates, rebel provinces, etc. Any thoughts?
Scythians were in decline, so probably no.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeeek2
Numidia is a hot candidate though.
Ethiopia was sadly not a strong power at this time and there are other factions with a much better claim.
Bastarnoz...you know...the only thing certain about them is their name. Otherwise there is no solid proof of what ethnicity they were and how they were organized.
Scandinavian culture. Hardly likely. At this time period were there any strong tribes who tried to carve a kingdom on the expense of others? And as for there being abundant iron, Viking weapons were of iron, but not of as good quality as the blacksmiths didn't have the techniques to remove the impurities.
I am by no means an expert, but in 272 B.C. northern Africa was dominated by the Carthaginians and the Ptolemies at this point. Minor players included various Numidian Kingdoms, the city of Cyrene and perhaps a Nubian kingdom or two. There also used to be a Libyan kingdom, but IIRC it was by now subjugated by the Carthaginians. South of Egypt there was also Kush/Meroe, but whether they were unified or not, they certainly weren't a strong nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
I can't answer your question about southern Africa, but it's really doubtful it will be included anyway: M2:TW does not increase the province limit, and the Sahara is a good natural border for the map.
The... Battle axe... Culture? What's that? Are you sure you're not talking about this example of a rather younger subculture?
Apart from the factions I've plugged (Syracuse and Helleno-Scythians), other people have suggested a few that caught my eye. I have a few questions about those, which might be interesting to discuss, mostly prompted by examining their Eleutheroi versions in EB1.
1. The Bastarnae
a) Where would you put them? In EB1 they're two provinces from the Getai homeland, and adjacent to Getai region 1. [I'm not suggesting this is wrong -- I wouldn't know -- just asking.]
b) In EB1 the military in that Basternae village is pretty much Sweboz with Dacian Shock Infantry renamed to "Basternae". Is that how you see them, or would there be more to it?
2. Pergamon
a) Historically/politically I like the idea of having a Greek city state in Asia Minor, like the KH but not a member. Was Pergamon actually like that, or was it more Persian?
b) Would their military be successor-style, or basically the same as the KH, or KH with a twist (serious cavalry, chariots, whatever)? I ask because I figure their important competition is the Seleucids, and EB already has "KH vs successor" or "successor vs successor" gameplay covered. If there were to be another KH style military inthe game, I'd rather it were Syracuse who face Rome/Carthage and would bring new gameplay to the mod.
3. Ireland
Would this be like the Casse or the Gallic factions, or something new?
Well, I mentioned the northern cultures as a faction to balance Germania "sweboz". Also this game starts at 274BC, or close to it; the tribes of the Rhine, and lands of Germany were no greater then the tribes of Scandinavia. If you are planning to add the Sweboz, then adding the Scandinavians would be no different. Plus the tribes of Scandinavia would be fighting wars south. Thats what they did. They would plunder and pillage, much like the later Norwegians/Saxons vikings. The Germanic tribes never were powerful until around 100BC or 9AD,I believe thats is when they finally got lots of contact with romans, so its of no great strength to add Scandinavian tribe to the roster.Plus the tribes surrounding Scandinavia made Germanic tribe .Also adding another Germanic tribe would be very bland...
Hmm, wasn't everybody except Rome in decline? A bit exaggerated, but I don't think this is an argument. Who says the Scythians could not have risen to power again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...
Höhöhö, am I right???
+1 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
And they bring something new and unique to the game, instead of duplicating existing factions.
I wondered if the team would do that... Dunno if you're correct, but I would like to see it. And it create three unique factions: Spartans with their unique social/military seup, Athens as the stereotypical Greeks, Rhodes at sea. Having Athens and Sparta together forever always made my skin itch, even if it's correct at the start date.Quote:
Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. [...] Höhöhö, am I right???
[QUOTE=Centurio Nixalsverdrus]Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...QUOTE]
Yeah but how would you manage to make them powerful enough to be "city-faction" knowing the AI they will end up fighting each other as soon as the first turn is over. Thats because they will have almost no place to expand considering the fact that KH holds only 2 cities directly in Greece(Athens and Sparta I think, the others beings controlled by Makedonia, correct me if I'm wrong) and there is only one rebel city near to be conquered. Even when grouped together, I have the feeling that KH is not that difficult for Makedonia or Epirotes to conquer (well I did not but maybe if Epirotes, Makedonia and KH are all managed by the AI they might pull off something)
So unless you come up with something that could make them independant but still powerful and playable:inquisitive: I think that taking 2 more slots for the sake 3 of creek city-states does not seem to be a good way to use the new factions slots that will be available.:no:
Well, when governed by the AI, KH comes out as the winner in almost 40%, Epeirus 50%, and poor Maks only 10%... I think dividing the KH would also be very benefitting for gameplay.:yes:
And, as for roles to one day become great nations??? Thats extremely odd to think about, for last I checked no ones nation grew what so ever even into 400-500AD +, The only ones left were Rome, Egypt, The Brit's and by that time the many old kingdoms failed (i guess India too, u never added them either) And Germanic tribes made what is now France (Franks), and Germany, Even Romania if u really must push it. Great nations fell; Greece, Macedonian, Persia etc... They might of had ambitions of becoming great powers, and if they did they eventually failed. Scandinavian tribes would have only been rising, They never had declined. They went up. And as to make a power Tribe/Nation yes they fought amongst them selfs. O WAIT JUST LIKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES DID, Germany never really invaded other lands other then there own to make a single German unit, Rome tried to invade, but failed miserable.Scandinavian tribal wars for power would have been in all of northern Europe Northern Germany to North Russia, They all most made Russia,!!! .Wars to other nations other then Rome were few and far between. Also for conflicts making nothing and have few major powers come from them.... People in Germanic land immigrated creating new groups,!!! So many of the tribes you have now aren't "par-se", even make it to your very own standards. Gauls or never lasted either... THE FRANKS TOOK THEM OVER. But yet you have them in the game? Why might this be? Answer me that. Also the romans to took them over not after to long (before the franks). They might of made a nation, but they didn't last long, and pretty much didn't make a kingdom...Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
True, but the unstable alliance argument applies to a greater or lesser extent to all factions. Even the Italian Socii revolted when Rome became powerful and refused to share out the booty. Being loyal to ones place of origin rather than to the idea a greater nation is hardly a exclusively Greek characteristic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
The problem with splitting up the KH is that it would result in both Athens and Sparta getting quickly gobbled up by either the Macedones or the Epirotes. They need to be in a single faction in order to survive. It seems a waste to spend two or three faction slots to a couple of not-very-powerful city states when there are so much more potential factions out waiting there.
Taking this argument to it's logical extreme, none of the empires in EB should be included since they all fell in history. But the achievement of an empire is not the criteria, it's the potential to form an empire. The Romans and Diadochi obviously had this potential. The Celts had it too, because they had once been an empire. The Suebi may also have pulled it off. The Scandiniavians on the other hand lacked a governemental structure that would allow empire formation. Heck, they probably weren't even unified. They wouldn't have been capable of serious expansion in the way the existing factions are. Could they have formed an empire? Well, who knows, if they were unified and proved themselves adaptable, but that seems rather slim ground for turning them into a faction when there are much more likely candidates available.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
It's not exclusivly Greek, but in Greece it's arguably most developed. Greece was a world of independent cities, and that was the core of there Greekness in my onpinion, the absolute desire for independance. Rome achieved hegemony over most of Italy after the epic struggles of the past 200 years, first subdueing the other Latin cities, than the rest of central Italy. Athens never subdued someone outside Attica. Sparte never subdued anyone outside Lakonia. And although they had of course (great) influence outside their respective areas (at least Athens), neither Athens was superior to Sparte nor was Sparte superior to Athens. After the Peloponnesian War the hegemonial ambitions of both cities were halted, and both fell under the hegemony of a third party, Makedonia. How could the Koinon Hellenon have formed if it weren't for the Makedonian hegemony? Wasn't it after all a response to being governed from the outside? Wasn't it after all an anti-Makedonian rebellion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I agree with you that one could apply the split-alliance-argument to other factions as well. Not on the Romans in my opinion, but most notably on the two Gaulic confederacies. And I must admit that I have problems to imagine how these two could have established an empire.
What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.
I repeat my claim that in the current build, the AI-KH comes out as the winner of the struggles for Hellas in more than 50%, and that is too much, really. Plus they almost never get destroyed, just due to the fact that the AI never goes by boat to conquer Rhodos (at least without BI). And even in my current Mak-campaign, Rhodos lasted almost 30 years (that's 30 years longer than Athens and Sparte) till I had the man power free to finish them off, resulting in a Rhodian fullstack invading Lykia. After all, the KH-cities weren't a strong faction. They were a faction with lots of problems to survive - which should be represented better. After all, there are no equal chances for all the factions. Some have it very easy, and some are somewhat doomed.
Ludens isn't an EB-fellow. And we haven't said no to all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
So what you want us to do instead is to have three new factions. Arguably neither Sparta, Athens or Rhodes were in a position to expand in this time-period. I reckon we should get rid of KH entirely, just have those city-states in the south as rebel settlements. Far better. Then we can spend that one faction slot someplace more deserving.Quote:
I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.
I repeat my claim that in the current build, the AI-KH comes out as the winner of the struggles for Hellas in more than 50%, and that is too much, really. Plus they almost never get destroyed, just due to the fact that the AI never goes by boat to conquer Rhodos (at least without BI). And even in my current Mak-campaign, Rhodos lasted almost 30 years (that's 30 years longer than Athens and Sparte) till I had the man power free to finish them off, resulting in a Rhodian fullstack invading Lykia. After all, the KH-cities weren't a strong faction. They were a faction with lots of problems to survive - which should be represented better. After all, there are no equal chances for all the factions. Some have it very easy, and some are somewhat doomed.
If you want to play a proper KH game then you have to roleplay, if you are playing against them, then it doesn't matter if they are three factions or one, they won't act any different once they get a sniff of the player.
We won't be splitting up KH.
Foot
Skythia was more than declining, they were kind of declined...
I don't think any faction in EB is necessarily declining at the start. The 'barbarians' are independant and capable of forming power by taking neighbors. Gaul was up and down throughout the time frame but not necessarily declining. Carthage was rising. Rome and Parthia were about to rise. Ptolemai and Seleucia were fighting eachother and whoever won would be quite powerful - Seleucia historically won and did quite well for some time after the start time. Antigonos was building an empire. The only factions I would describe as declining would be Epirus and KH.
About KH, if they were lone cities they would be too weak to be considered for factions. Only together do they get a faction slot. If they were devided, they might as well be powerful rebel territories.
Personally, I'd like to see a Nubian faction. But they were too weak and didn't have a diverse military.
True that the Scandinavians occasionally had conflict but that does not mean that they were never united. They did open trade with each other, and worked together for there benefit. They did go on offensives and raids of other tribes together that were not there own region many times. The Greeks for example whom had extremely advanced governments rarely worked together unless an outside source threatened Greece. Furthermore the Scandinavian government may not have been quite as advanced but it was as advanced as many of the tribes in Mesopotamia that were united into the Persian empire so the only factor missing from Scandinavians creating an empire was a single person to unite them. Also concerning there weapons the barbarians of Europe with the same basic weapons where responsible for the destruction of the romans among other factors. With those factors combined Scandinavia was basically organized the same way as the Germanic tribes and could have been easily organized to create a kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
That's not entirely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League
I understand the context of what you're saying, and agree that Athens and Sparta couldn't have built an empire in 272 BC....I just wanted to point out that Athens did indeed subdue, in an indirect way at first, but more directly as their power grew, those outside attica, albeit two hundred years before the start of our game. :2thumbsup:
I think the green colour of Ludens' name somehow irritated me.~D And I wrote this sentence about your "no" with an ironic smily.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
There is no need to feel offended about KH or getting sarcastic please. I quite like the Greeks, I just don't feel comfortable with such a thing like the KH, a Nazi-esque city and a "democratic" system together hand in hand building an empire. There is so much hatred and resentment between these two major Greek players that I just can't imagine them not splitting up immediatly after getting rid of the Makedones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
OK. But there IS one occasion when KH is not so nice: Playing a distant faction and then usually seeing it on the map having conquered whole Greece and up to Thrace. That's not so funny, almost like the Romans conquering Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Thanks for your hint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Gameplay-wise, another German and Iberian faction (probably Celtiberians) would be needed. I mean, the Sweboz have too little trouble both in the beginning and in the later game. Oh, and IIRC, guys from the "German Team" informed us in the "Sweboz slightly underpowered" thread that they wanted to add the another German faction. In case of the Celtiberians - an another faction in Iberia would create a situation similar to Aedui-Arverni thing...
Numidia would also be good (more trouble in Africa is always good, as it's rather empty in almost every TW game or mod), and its inclusion seems quite likely, seeing as it always was a some kind of "a faction that the team wanted to include but couldn't (because of the faction limit)".
Greece is already cluttered and the only thing that it needs is balancing, and it's a never-ending process.
Syracuse would be a "one-city faction" that would stop Karthadastim, SPQR and (sometimes) Epeiros for a short period of time and would be eliminated very early in the game, so it probably should stay as the Eleutheroi city (maybe with an unique unit or two).
Another faction (or factions) in Asia would be good and the more trouble the Seleucids have, the better. Maybe the Galatians? Or the Pergamon?
Oh, and the Getai are passive, but maybe some competition would liven them up?:yes:
some suggestions for newe factions:
*Western Germanic Faction e.g. Chatti or Cherusci to prevent a Italia/ Graeco/ Gallo-Germanic Empire
*Eastern Germanic Faction e.g. Bastarnae (suggested before) or maybe Neuriji to challenge/ force the Sauromatae to expand (in most games they remain dormant; like my latest Makedon campaign it's already 180BCE and Sauromatae only captured 1 city and lost another to Pahlavi)
*Illyria (for about the same reason as the Western Germanic Faction)
*Numidia/ Berber Tribes, Maybe an expansion of Africa, Carthage had some colonies along Africa's west coast founded by Hanno
*Illyria (as suggested earlier)
*Rival faction to challenge the Casse in Britian
*Aksum/ D'mt/ some Ethiopian faction
*Another Steppe faction such as Massagetae or Dahae
*Nabataeans to challenege Seleucid expansion into Arabia
*Galatians to bring more conflict into Anatolia and possibly waging war with Pontos or Seleucia
*Bosporan Kingdom to challenge Sauromatae and Hayasdan
*Maurya, Pandya and Yuezhi (If there the map expands east)
I think Gaul is already crowded enough with 2 factions, Syracuse would also not be a good idea because it would get destroyed very early (according to Cybvep)
Greece is already crowded enough and to make a new faction there (e.g. Aetolian/ Aechean League) would cause lots of trouble
p.s. why does Koinon Hellenon represent the Chremonidean league (according to EB's website)? the Chremonidean war did not start until 268/269 BCE
I can't speak for the other factions you've mentioned, Seleukos Syriakos, but the EB team has already stated that
- They won't expand the EB map in EB2, due to them already being at the RTW province limit (and consequently at the M2 province limit: it's the same).
- The fact that they will have no additional territory or provinces to play with means the EB team won't include Maurya.
- EB has already decided against emerging factions, and as the Yuezhi entered the EB map after the start date, they won't be included either.
Well I assume there was some diplomatic talks between the cities for a few years before then. There was nothing else suitable in the timeframe and so we used that alliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukos Syriakos
Foot
I believe they would be Hellenic (at least relative to Pontos or whatever) but I'm not sure. IIRC both Pergamon and Syracuse have been confirmed as possibilities, probably less likely that they would both be in though.Quote:
2. Pergamon
a) Historically/politically I like the idea of having a Greek city state in Asia Minor, like the KH but not a member. Was Pergamon actually like that, or was it more Persian?
b) Would their military be successor-style, or basically the same as the KH, or KH with a twist (serious cavalry, chariots, whatever)? I ask because I figure their important competition is the Seleucids, and EB already has "KH vs successor" or "successor vs successor" gameplay covered. If there were to be another KH style military inthe game, I'd rather it were Syracuse who face Rome/Carthage and would bring new gameplay to the mod.
You can get a flavour of what they would be like from the Goidilic units in EB1. As I understand it from previous discussions, the proposed Goidilic faction (Erainn) would start off fairly similar to the Casse, but over time reforms and so on would introduce more Iberian influences to their units. So they would potentially end up as a kind of Casse/Lusotannan hybrid in terms of units. I suppose that the reason there is interest in them for a second British Isles faction is that they would be more unique than the Brigantes or whatever, who would presumably be very like the Casse miltarily, like the Aedui/Arverni.Quote:
3. Ireland
Would this be like the Casse or the Gallic factions, or something new?
Antagonist
As Foot said, I am not an EB member. But I am sure that the EB team has considered many of the options mentioned in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Perhaps empire is the wrong word, but the Cubi-Biturge confederation (of whom the Aedui were the inheritors) once ruled over Gaul and a large chunck of central Europe, so it was possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
You are right that the KH would be the most fickle of alliances represented as a faction, but what I am saying is that they wouldn't have been the only uncertain one. IIRC both the Lusitanians and the Sauromatea represent confederacies of several tribes, and even the Romans had at one point to deal with a serious uprising of the Italian Allies. So including a Greek unified faction is not that much of a stretch, and it's either that or drop them alltogether.
Athens didn't have a large army, or else they wouldn't have needed the help of Sparta. There is more ways of weakening them than splitting them up. If they are too strong now than splitting them will make them too weak. Alone, Athens didn't stand a chance against Macedon, even in the weakened state it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
All true, yet that applies to many tribes. They could have been united. They could have invaded nearby territory. They could have developed a strong governement. I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.Quote:
Originally Posted by ledzepp1000
Why should we include Scandinavians? True they might have been as powerful as some other tribes, but some of those other tribes we are considering ended up carving up kingdoms of their own.
Which leads to my next point. We have more sources on those tribes that were more successful and we are not going to choose factions which we will have much trouble getting sources on and manpower to work on. *cough*Saba *cough*
And be careful with what evidence you come with. I've seen some theories and "evidence" here at the University in Bergen about ancient Norwegians.
Like us being Caucasus immigrants due to that we have some words remarkably similar to Assyrian. Although that theory has a few merits...
Now take the Bastarnae/Bastarnoz. They were probably Germanic and we know a few bits about what they did and who they fought for. However there is still speculation on how Germanic they were, were they Germanic at all, how much influenced were they by Sarmatians, Getai & Celts? Were they Sarmatians or Getai?
We don't know much about the Bastarnae, which is probably why they will not be in EB2.
[QUOTE I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.[/QUOTE]
I'm sooo lost on this more powerful candidates... There is few more then you can offer to add more variety to the game... Are we not supposed to balance that Germanic tribe??? YES!!! Then well... A northern tribe would at least keep them on an offense to the north, instead of them just flying by there normal game of fighting "rebels". And please ... when you played as sweboz in Eb1 you know pretty much you were left alone the majority of the game; unless you took the liberty to actually get in there and fight. Every other faction at lest had a neighbor that was in range early in the game and was of an equal fight
... unlike rebels surrounding you... And to say there are better candidates is a little too much, What if the Scandinavian tribes took off, and united early, what if they become a pro dominate terror in the north a little faster,(Like every thing does in that game, which is true: "Rome, Germania, Dacia") etc... So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose. And as for use in that game; it does give a major balance that was needed, and some people have mentioned that as well...
Err... No. And even if "we" did, then it doesn't necesarily require a faction to to do so. You can also beef up the Eleutheroi or weaken the Sweboz. And even if you do need a faction, then it doesn't have to be the Scandinavians. There is several major tribes closer by and with a greater impact on history. So why the Scandinavians and not, for example, the Cimbri or the Noricenes?Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
That's three "what if's". I think you have proven my point: the Scandinavians failed several requirements required to become an empire. That could have changed, but it's unlikely, and certainly in 272 B.C. they were in no position to start an empire.Quote:
And to say there are better candidates is a little too much, What if the Scandinavian tribes took off, and united early, what if they become a pro dominate terror in the north a little faster,
I already mentioned the Cimbri and the Noricenes, but one could also think of the Belgae and the Bastarnoz (if they won't be included, alas, they still were a power in their own right). And this is just the same area. So again, why should a faction be included that needs to be unified and strenghtened first before being capable of forming an empire?Quote:
So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose.
The best ever Idea is making Sparta, Athens and Rhodes Sperate factions.
Numidia should be smaller(in reality it never controled Maurtania)
Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Lugians and Basternoz would both be different. Truth is, we don't like factions that back onto a map edge. A scandinavian faction will not be making it in, we don't have the expertise and it wouldn't offer much in the way of gameplay benefits (an eastern germanic faction would do much better).Quote:
Originally Posted by ledzepp1000
Foot
1st off "Cimbri" is a Scandinavian tribe! THERE FROM JUTLAND THAT'S DENMARK! That's apart of the Nordic unions, and economics today! They have a Nordic cross on there flag too :laugh4: ! LOL And Bastarnoz, Belgae your right they were some what powerful in there on right, but no way could they contend with the others... Adding "Cimbri" wouldn't be such a bad idea I guess, but still, would not it be interesting to show a farther north tribe. Which would be much like Cimbri.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?
I also think that a Greek/Scythian faction in the Crimea would be a stellar idea. The Spartocid dynasty of the Bosporan Kingdom could benefit from a really cool blend of Greek and Pseudo-Greek units along with a healthy dose of horse archers (Perhaps similar to Saka post-reforms). I don't know too much, but this link has some information, particularly names of various rulers and lengths of their rule:
http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/crimea.html#Bosporus
If you scroll to the top and hit home, and then general index, you can look up dynasties from all over the place. All told, pretty nifty.
Historically I think Syracuse (like the two numidian kingdom) is too important not to put in.
But that's what's so interesting about playing them...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rundownloser
Was Syracuse capable of meaningful expansion/conquest during the period? I'll be honest, I don't know the history well enough to adjudicate this point (All I know is that they might have conquered Messana if not for the Carthaginians). The second question is, assuming that Syracuse wasn't capable, do they still deserve the spot? It seems like they'd get dominated with Carthage to one side and Rome to the other (albeit a few years before they saw Rome). I know that the siege of Syracuse ended in 212 or so, but that was because it had rebelled against Roman rule. Since 263, it was an allied state of the republic under Heiro II, who took power seven years earlier. Wouldn't that basically be a type 4 government? As a faction, in game terms, it only existed for 9 years since the beginning of the game, before being conquered by Rome (in essence).
On another note, perhaps instead of splitting up the Greek faction, more anti-Spartan/anti-Athenian traits could be introduced, or maybe even an enhanced and expanded version of the Barcid/Anti-Barcid trait system. You could have the missions pop up (a la nobles/pope missions from M2) for one goal or another and their completion or failure could increase/decrease unrest in certain cities, effect FM loyalty, etc.
I am not really up to date on the Germanic tribes, but as I understand it the Sweboz were the most sophisticated of them, governementally. At least they were mostly unified, which is not something that can be said about the Scandinavians. Also, we know very little about the tribes that inhabited Scandinavia at this point in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ledzepp1000
I stand corrected. Although I do wonder why you keep prefering a northern tribe over an existing one like the Cimbri.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
The Belgae launched a major invasion of Gaul and defeated the Aedui just before the start of the game. It was only the intervention of the Carnutes that turned them back. The Bastarnoz consistently were a thorn in the side of first the Dacians and then the Romans. What did the Scandinavians do?Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
Syracuse would be extremly challenging an fun to play IMHO.Quote:
I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?
Also Syracuse as a rebel city lasts decades, Syracuse as a faction will probably last a lot longer bacause the AI is much more agressive towards the Rebels the other factions.
Why this obsession with Scandinavian tribes?? They did not expand majorly or have substantial proof they attempted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
Plus if we want to limit the Sweboz we have many candidates with more sources available on: We got the Belgae tribes in west. Some of the rebel areas in Germany contain Germanic tribes we can up to faction-level. We have the Helvetii. Boii in Austria/Czech Republic area. Aesti and Lugii/Lugians in east and also Rugians.
Unless we have major evidence and sources for a relatively obscure faction I can safely say EB will go for more known factions.
Although, if you can supply me with evidence about Scandinavian tribal customs, military, administration, religion and history I'll be sure to forward it as a suggestion. We are hobby historians mainly (with a core of professional ones). We are not wizards. We can't just use a magic wand and voila find sources & evidence for whatever we want. So no Scandinavians unless there is evidence & sources we can use to make one. We won't make up stuff either.
And should you find evidence make sure to check who wrote it or found it and described it, as you can't take any text or archeological find's description without a critical view.
Well said Krusader :2thumbsup: Asking for a faction or a list of factions, even if you don't know if it would be possible to add it or them is one thing (total acceptable I might add) but asking for a faction almost starting a "war" because someone told you would not be possible to add it rather silly :thumbsdown:
If you want to see so badly a Scandinavian tribe, you should be here arguing that they should be include but rather looking out for well documented sources that will prove your point that they should be include.
---------------------
Proving the others wrong does not prove that you are right ... :wall:
LOL, dude that would be awesome :2thumbsup: if you put Cimbri in. I don't see a reason why not to put them in. I just like the more northern tribes better, there ultimately the same, but Cimbri did have a battle history with Rome, that I know from research. So they would cut the availability? I hope soo.... Tribes father north just don't have any history able to find on them at hand, truly it's extremely hard. But they would be very like the Cimbri.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
BBLAHAehaHAtrjarnaj!!! OK, OK!!! I have been giving out info, it seem ledzepp has as well. But tonight I shall find some "facts". I guess I will giving links to my findings???Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Military, I can say with ease that Germanic tribes would be very close. OOO BUT YOU NEED FACTS!!! right.... I'll do my best.
Just for the record: I am not an EB member.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
Limited number of faction slots for one, limited knowledge about them for another, limit impact on history for a third. You can't add factions just because they may have achieved something. You need to show they were a serious player, even if they lost in the end. Those are the facts you need to look for. In this particular case, you will have to find a Scandinavian tribe that was sufficiently unified in or around 272 B.C., and possessed the military might and political acumen for extensive expansion.Quote:
I don't see a reason why not to put them in.
Well, they did attack the Roman empire a few times. How many people in that time period actually "ATTACKED" Rome??? (as in starting a war with Rome, NOT being invading them ESPECIALLY A BARBARIAN ONE AT THAT) They wanted land, they settled lots of land in Germania, and Cezh; mostly the northern part of Germania where there home land was close too. And attacked Rome on its northern front ( ITALY AT THIS TIME). Not sure if they managed to stay there, and if they did it wasn't for a long time. But that is simply history...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
That in my opinion is one helluva contender.
[QUOTE=Patriote]if you give sparta and athens fll stacks to begin with and a fair bit of cash, then at least one of them would have a fighting chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Syracuse has to be in there..... they held their own against the Carthagians for a long time and even the Romans... for awhile. If they managed to beat carthage out of sicily they could also be a buffer against Rome. Personally id like to see more Greek factions, it seems right now in EB1 Greece and Macedon fight a pretty brutal war against each other and whoever wins(which seems pretty random to me in my campaigns) then blitzes a huge portion of the map. If there were more factions in there it would be even more brutal and take longer before one of them unleashes the blitzkrieg :P
But when did they attack Rome?Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
Personally I'd be interested in seeing the Koinon made a more involving experience. Right now it seems too tight and solid, detracting from the differences between members. It would be interesting to have one city playable with the others being gained (or lost) through missions, but I guess that would require a lot of scripting.
Personal faves for new factions? Syracuse, a Numidian kingdom, Pergamon, Bosporan Greeks, Massiliotes (though I guess they're unlikely but I like their Greek-Gallic thing), a Belgic tribe, another Germanic tribe (either Lugii or Basternae would be great), and Goidils. Some Celtiberians and Illyrians would be nice, too, but I don't know if they'd be enough unified.
They (Cimbri & Teutones) triggered the Marian reforms. The war took place between 113BC - 101BCQuote:
But when did they attack Rome?
Yes, two crushing defeats for the Romans (Noreia 113 and Arausio 105).
The Koinon will stay as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
However we will look into making it harder to be them if you are successful and begin expanding out of Greece to represent the members thinking it's safe enough for them to leave the Koinon.
Yes, with more flexibility with events and what they can trigger, we should be able to do something quite nice with them.
Foot
And that is 160 years after the start date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax
What does that sentence mean? It's 159 years after the start date and 127 years before the end date. Or, in other words, it's right in the middle of EB's timeframe.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Hmmm, around 104BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Thereby you've already provided yourself an answer. We do not do emerging factions, period.
Did anybody ask for an emerging faction? That the Cimbri and Teutones first appeared in 113 doesn't mean that they didn't exist before.
Noreia 113 was in fact the first mention of any Germanic tribes. But the Sweboz aren't an emerging faction because they were first encountered in Caesar's Gallic campaign, are they?
So you can have all kinds of reason for not including the Cimbri or Teutones or Ambrones or whatever tribe of Skandza, and I concur with your reasons. But don't say they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded. The Greeks and Romans are not the measure for all things you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Couldn't have said it better my self.
Good job putting words into other people's mouths. Since when has anyone claimed that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writings? Far as the EB team has said they are heavily reliant on archeological evidence for the Germanics, and that the evidence points to them as being more centralised than the other options and hence more useful as a faction in a TW game. They represent factions as they were at the start, namely 272; if the various options weren't worth representing at that date, they aren't worth including, which is why the Yuezhi were dropped.
Besides, you want Skandza? RTR 7.0 will have them. They've got their reasons, EB has theirs.
My thoughts exactly. :yes:
I'm not saying that the Sweboz are included on the basis of Caesar's writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
andQuote:
Originally Posted by Myself in previous post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myself again
Then I suggest you rephrase your reasoning, because the section quoted was not that clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
I can see where some of the confusion comes from. Tellos Athenaios implied that because their mention occurs around 104 bc they would have to be an emerging faction; clearly their history goes back further than that, so that wouldn't be a valid reason. I think MarcusAureliusAntoninus put it more clearly: what's being argued against by both is including people such as the Cimbri and Teutones on the basis of a moment many years after 272 in which a major action brings them into the attention of Greek/Roman authors, which is what was being implied by SouthernTrendKill and in reaction to whom both were writing. The EB team is not stating that the Cimbri and Teutones didn't have a history before their encounters with the Romans, but are arguing against their inclusion on the basis of achievements of the 2nd century bc.
Like the other factions in a situation such as that of the Sweboz at the time, such as mainly the other 'barbarian' factions, new factions need archeological remains to form the basis of evidence for the faction in 272 bc.
The last highlighted line is like preaching to the converted. That's the whole basis of EB in a nutshell. It also shows that the reasons the EB team has for not including such factions as the Cimbri and Teutones (which has not actually even been explicitely stated will be the case) you concur with in the first highlighted line aren't fully understood. They aren't saying they would be an emerging faction and therefore excluded: they are saying that the reasons given for their inclusion by for instance SouthernTrendKill aren't enough to warrant inclusion, because those reasons imply they would have to be emerging factions because the first time those peoples had an relevance is midway through the campaign game. That's where the idea that the Cimbri and Teutones would have to be an emerging faction came from, not from EB team members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
I must note that the EB team has not gone further than showing why the reasons given here by fans aren't enough to warrant including certain discussed factions. That does not mean they aren't candidates, since that does not mean stronger evidence in favour doesn't exist or isn't being discussed in the EB development area.
I know, and I think I misunderstood Tellos Athenaios statement about emerging factions. I try to be more clearly in my statements next time, I'm sorry for the confusion.~:0Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
No problem. I probably overreacted a little, certainly when considering that English isn't your native language (I think?). It can certainly make things awkward when everything is text based here.
Well, I can say that there will be more than one faction in Germania. :2thumbsup: But since we can't put them all in, we have to decide which ones are most powerful and could have been expansionistic in 272BC.
Also, it isn't too good to make a faction with their 'back to the wall'. So it doesn't make since to add a Scandinavian faction. They would have been interested in stuff off the map, as well as on the map. Same reasoning behind a Nubian faction or an Indian faction.
Having a nation against a wall would then require them to fight away from there homeland to expand. The Scandinavians tribes fought romans and Germans for land and regional domination, but just like Germans, Gaul, and Dacia other barbarian etc..., skirmishes, and petty tribal conflicts were of the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus