Dibran, stop posting the same question in multiple threads. Its annoying.
Foot
Printable View
Dibran, stop posting the same question in multiple threads. Its annoying.
Foot
How about creating a sticky about which factions won't be in EB2? This would stop people asking if they are in or suggesting them to be in over and over again and make EB members explain why they are not in. Here's my attempt from team responses I have read. This is not official.
Kush\meroe\any black African faction - There are only 7 culture slots, cultures determine leader portraits ergo thy would have to have white portraits
Caledonians - not powerful enough
Cyrene - Not in. Shame.
Another Iberian faction - unlikely. There weren't many as powerful as the Lusitani.
Illyrians or Thracians - They were not united. 'Illyrians' or 'Thracians' is not specific enough.
Numidians - See above.
Bastarnoz - Not enough is known about them
Sparta - They are part of the Koinon Hellon.
'Roman\Egyptian\Selukid ect Rebels - There are many real factions to represent. They will be prioritized over rebels.
I'm fairly sure that EB members have said that Numidians will probably be in.
I would be very surprised if 'The Numidians' were in. The term is not specific enough. See my comment.
You obviously havent read the first Stele. You'll find factions that won't be included in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartix Elite Guard
How about creating a sticky about which factions won't be in EB2? This would stop people asking if they are in or suggesting them to be in over and over again and make EB members explain why they are not in.
First of all factions should be powerful, united, and expansionistic at the start date. Also, should be on the map (which can't be expanded). No shadow factions or emerging factions. From what has been admitted publically, this is basically what factions won't be in:
-Judaea : emerging and wouldn't expand
-Mauryan Empire : majority off the map
-Kush/Nubia/Meroe or Eithiopia : not powerful, on edge of map, culture problems
-Scandinavian tribe : little known, not powerful, on edge of map
-Slavic/baltic tribe : little known, not powerful
-Splitting up the Koin : if they were devided they would each be a rebel city
-Roman rebels : unplayable - could be used for a playable faction elsewhere
I meant by that "A numidian faction", such as Massyli for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartix Elite Guard
I would like to support this idea. As long as the EBII map should be almost identical to EB1.0 one, I think the current distribution of factions is good enough. Having the feature of possible civil war is much more attractive game-play-wise than adding more factions. (In first Medieval TW it was a rather cool feature even in its rudimentary form there.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasidas
It would also be much less demanding for modders, because you would need not to design new units and buildings. TW games are excellent at the beginning of a campaign, when the player really must think a lot about what he/she is doing. Occasional civil war would keep the thrill even in the mid- late-campaign when otherwise human player just dominates the world and the challenge drops rapidly.
Please, please, if there is the possibility, implement the rebel counterparts to playable factions rather than new ones. :yes:
:flowers: :bow: :flowers:
There is no possibility. How would we decide which factions would get it (seeing as we only have 10 new factions and 20 original ones)? Furthermore the new factions are needed to flesh out areas of the map that are otherwise poorly represented by rebels (especially where these are places where factions ahistorically expand. Finally we want to focus on education and we can better show the history of our world through playable factions than non-playable factions.
Foot
Foot
Here's my shot at putting the possible new factions into perspective First we need to take into account that although EB2 will have more faction slots to play with the amount of unit slots remains the same, so any new faction will have to use units already in game with few unique ones. So they will have to use other cultures units, which makes sense since the same number of culture slots remain right?
Bosperous Kingdom: It has already been stated that this faction was one of the runner ups in EB but didn't quite make it. It starts with 2 provinces which makes it an attractive faction plus it's Greek so that it will use units that already exist. Plus we have their unique heavy archers with steppe units. This along with it's location on the map makes it an interesting choice.
Massalia: Another Greek faction that starts with 2 provinces and stated by EB members as another 'could have been' faction. A mix of Greek and Celtic units plus it's own unique hoplite makes this another almost guaranteed choice.
Kyrene + Pergamon + Syrakousai: Since Greek factions are already fleshed out and one of these cities have their own unit any Greek faction will be easy on the unit slots. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more of these factions make an appearance since all three have been involved in wars and politics. Not to mention each of them has an interesting starting position for playability factor.
Ireland: I don't remember the name of the people that live here. EB has stated that they didn't actually exist until shortly after the game start date but you just have to look at the unit selection to see that the EB team take these guys seriously. 6, that's right, SIX regional units. Ranging from low end troops to uber elites, it's already a fully fledged faction, it just needs a slot. Would add a lot to the British region.
Galatia: These guys fight, it's what they do, not to mention there is a huge number of Galatian troops available which gives them a full unit roster. Plus Celts so far East fighting against phalanx troops would be pretty intense although the region is over crowded. Anyone else notice how Galatia appears in the EB Civ game? Could be a clue there. They would also help the whole rebellion leading to a crazy long distance Gaelic alliance.
Skythia: Two starting provinces and already have some unique units of their own. Plus given their location on the map these guys are the closest your ever going to having a faction in the Polish region. With a bit of luck they will help keep the Europeans in Europe.
A Belgae Tribe: 4 unique units and an excellent faction to sit in between the Germans and the Celts. But from a playability side of things not certain if they really bring enough to the table
Celtic Alps: Don't remember their name but they are strong thanks to the EB scripts A lot of unique troop types and a location that will help keep factions where they are meant to be.
Another Iberian or Germanic tribe: Don't know enough about these regions to comment but these area's have a bunch of regional units (including the Iberian tanks). Since these areas are lacking they would benefit from a faction.
Numidia: EB has stated that they weren't a united faction although they did say they would have wanted them in but there were other factions more worthy of an appearance. Perhaps with 10 new factions slots they will appear. The main problem being that there isn't a great deal of unit types so it will be interesting to see how much of a unit roster these guys would have.
Illiria + Thrace + Ethiopia: Unfortunately we know these guys wont appear despite Illiria having 3 units and Thrace having 5. They just weren't united enough. Ethiopia on the other hand lacks a culture slot although they do have a few units of their own.
Didn't expect it to be this long. Be interested to see what the rest of you think. Just some of the factions that I feel I know enough to write about. (Note: couldn't be bothered to proof read :yes: )
An Irish faction would be sick. It's pretty much inevitable that you conquer the British Isles city by city. An Irish faction would shake things up a bit. A belgae faction could also make things interesting.
I had an idea for the KH- Instead of a faction with all of them, you could consider making Athens and Sparta and maybe a couple more of those cities (I'm not too familiar with their politics and strengths at the time) independent factions allied in the beginning. If you played as Athenians, you would start out with just Athens and you could break your alliances when you chose and conquer the pennesula. It kind of takes care of the problem of the fragile alliance becoming a stable empire and each city could have unique units.
I think you'll get AI problems.
Imagine playing on VH/M as Sparta, with three full-stack Makedonian armies on your borders.
I think the KH should stay as it is, though you do make a valid point, and I wouldn't really mind if it went that way.
That's a good point. I'm sure that could be worked around, though. Or shit, if you want to play as Athens in 272, expect to have to heroically defeat a Mak stack in your first few turns.
MY vote is for additional Northern Central/Eastern factions to spice up that area. An improved Getai factions would also be nice, as they always seem to capture about three cities, hold them for a little bit, and then get smoked by Macedon or Germany, but Macedon mainly. I can understand the rapid German expansion even if I've never seen the AI actually do this. Generally, I think the center part of the map is good. If we have any more hellenic factions such as Syracuse or Rhodes the middle of the map will become more packed than it already is. The Numidians to limit the inevitable Carthagian expansion would be nice. I mean, dunno about you guys, but I've never seen Carthagenot do well. I've also heard differently from other people, but the Avernii and the Auedi (spelling, I know. I'm talking about the two Gallic factions) seem to roll over really easily whenever the AI plays them. Heck, even the Casse beats em'.
-Another British faction so the Casse have a real enemy at the beginning of the game
-The Numidians to put the brakes on seemingly endless Carthaginian expansion
-Additional steppe factions to add some flavor
-Beefed up Getai that can hold their own against the Hellenes and Germans (and Romani later on)
-Moderately beefed up Gallc factions
Let's be honest, there really ain't a whole lot to fix about EB, but those are just my suggestions.
- Goths (or some other German tribe
- A Goidelic (Irish) tribe
- Numidia
- Possibly (!) Illyria (it is awfully crowded there...)
- Random another nomad faction (Skythia, rising again? Alans? Yuezhi?)
- Galatians (everyone loves Galatians!)
- The Belgae
- Pergamon
(- Bosphoran Kingdom?)
Err, some of those. I think it read somewhere they had chosen seven out of the ten (I'ven't been following the development of EBII pretty much at all, I admit) new factions, so, dunno. Those'd just be the ones I'd personally most likely consider adding, from both historical and gameplay-based POVs (for example, there were several German tribes and the Goths would prevent the Sweboz from advancing too far to the east... But then again, the tribes were small, etc, and not exactly very important/influencial during the "EB time").
Hrm. I'll blame my tiredness for all the typos et cetera, it's 2:25 and I'm heading to bead now. 8D
I'd like to see an emerging Judean faction to simulate the Hasmonean revolt. But this is probably a dumb idea.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89290
no emerging factions and no judeans, sorry :no:
Ah, I see. Thanks for the info then
I would like to see Noricum as a faction and maybe one of the western greek colonies like Massilia. I dunnot know whether they were strong enough to be considerable for a faction here but I think the mix of celtic and greek troops would be quite interesting. Ah and maybe a Numidian faction?
There are so many factions that would be great, but here are my top ones based on what has been said.
-Boii in Noricum to hinder the Romans and Sweboz.
-Numidia to channel Carthage overseas.
-Bosphoran Kingdom would just be cool and would liven up the Pontic/Steppe region.
-Scythia, still alive (barely) but could help slow ridiculous expansion by Hounds of Woden.
-Pergamon or Galations in Asia Minor to fight the Grey Death.
-Belgae, except that this works against the other Gallic factions.
-Thracian tribe or Balkan Celtic tribe to hem in the Greek factions.
-Cyrene to help stop the never ending Sand Wars.
factions that are cool but sort of serve counter purposes to playability.
-Belgae
-Illyria
-Rhodes
-Massilia
-Goidaels
That's all I have so far.
Chairman
Save for Central Europe, the map is pretty much full.
A new faction in Asia Minor would be an absolute "no" for me. The region allows for only a little expansion that might give Pontos some teeth, or allow for the glorious return of the Lesbian Makedons after routinesly losing Pella to the Epeirote mercanery mob.
The same would be for the Southern and Western Balkans: Thrakia would be fine by the units but would block off that little expansion that we have by the Getai, about the same would be for Illyria.
Scythia would be the third Nomad faction. The RTW model didn't really support the idea, may be the M2 does, with it's free upkeep units? If not there shouldn't be more factions of that kind.
The Bosporian Greeks would be fine. But here again we have the problem,where to expand to? I think the AI would always head into Russia what would look somewhat odd for a Greek faction.
The Bastarnoz would be fine, on the other hand. I think, players won't mind to have a Barbarian faction controlling these hinterland provinces. Even though it would be a little early for a Germanic Empire in this region.
All the candidates for the Central European theatre were allready named. At least one faction (but may be not more) between the Alps and the Baltics should make it in.
The Italian Greeks in the form of Syracusae are another option. We allready have to (should-be) strong factions there with the Romans and Karthago, but both seem to ignore the region for the first decades of the game. A faction that starts there could bring some movement in.
The Casse could need an "anti-faction" as well. The Sweboz too. A second Germanic faction would represent the situation there better than the single empire that we usually have there around 260, in particular when both are run by the AI.
Still sulking over the fact that shadow Roman rebels won't make the cut :thumbsdown: I realize there aren't enough slots to give every faction a shadow and it's not fair to do it to some but not others, but I really wanted big bloody Roman civil wars as the Republic got unwieldy in the late years. By the time Marian legions come into play the Romans must own so many provinces that a civil war would be one of the only ways an AI faction could challenge them IMO. Wish you guys would reconsider this.
I would really love to see (and play) either Pergamon or Syracusa as a faction, however understand there may be some gameplay issues with this - perhaps a few more cities/towns in those respective areas might make it more possible? I have no idea how many regions can be supported by the MedII engine.
As for factions that are needed to help prevent ahistoric expansion - one that challenges the Sweboz is an obvious first with possibly an Irish faction to spice up the isles to the west, which are generally dead unless occupied by a human player.
A Numidian faction to challenge Karthadast, who though generally fairly quiet are always massive and completely unchallenged in Africa.
Apart from that anything else would really be a bonus!
Best of luck, though from your effort with EB1 I know you won't really need it :2thumbsup:
MTW2 allows 1 less city than the current amount in EB.
Nope, allows exactly the same. 199 land provinces + 1 sea province.Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
Foot
whats a sea province?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Like ... the sea.
Foot
im sorry for being thick i just cant figure how the sea province can be actually used, how it works:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I don't understand your question. What do you mean "used"? Do you mean the files that reference it. Essentially it is a colour in descr_regions which gives it the property of being the sea (and so ships can be spawned there and harbours can be built on its edge and shipping lanes can exist there). Don't understand what else is there.
Foot
yep, that answered my question, thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I did not read the whole thread ..
Ok, I am for One faction from INDIA and on that and if 'could' be realated to CHINA in any way.. Also, I could EB team could make more faction's in Europe and Some Small city kingdom's everywhere, but I am really voting for one more 'International' view for one of the best RTW mod's ever! :san_wink:
A lot of focus, as usual, is directed towards Europe when this topic is discussed which IMHO is a strategical dead-end. EB already portrays this region well enough.
The introduction of Sabaeans made the whole south-eastern part of the map more enjoyable and more efforts like these would be preferred.
Introducing a Nubian kingdom like the Meroitic state is an excellent idea. It stretched from the 2nd cataract well beyond the 6th. And a thriving kingdom around the Axum region (SE Nubia/ W Ethiopia) would be implementable too. How about the Libyans then?
In W.Africa around Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria and through the Atlas mountain range there where several berber kingdoms, like the Numidians, and atleast one of them deserves some representation.
Personally I´d also like to see some emergant states scripted at historical date.
I´ve studied Egypts ancient history extensively for 20 years and we always ignore the tremendous trade and influence of the Read Sea region, Africas horn and inner Africa had on the "civilized world" back then. Take the Phoenicians and later Carthaginians for example. There is a reason why the founded cities all over Africa. Maybe our knowledge of these areas is just too scarce for us to fully comprehend and "feel" for a faction from these regions?!
.
I take it you haven't read the entire thread. ~;)
It's been made clear by the team that
- There won't be any African factions (Kush, Meroe, Axum...) due to the engine's restrictions (culture)
- There won't be emergent or unplayable factions for all of them will be playable from the beginning.
As for me, assuming that CA release a Kingdoms version not infested with the malware Securom and thus I play EBII, I would like to see another barbarian faction to counterbalance the Swêboz, the Casse or Lusotana, if not all of them. Another nomadic faction would help too.
I feel itchy about Koinon Hellenon and would prefer the city-states proper, in some sort of a league Kingdoms is supposed to support if possible, but the team discarded that option too.
What I would not want is another Hellenistic faction on top of the present 7, particularly in Mikrasia. Just in case:
A Numidian faction is, IIRC, hinted to be being considered.
.
It's not your lucky day, Mouz: for starters your ex-/ex block contains a minor grammar mistake. (You've forgotten to add an agent to the main sentence, a proper one would be for example "he".)
.
I realized that but felt lazy to correct it...and the only time I neglect to edit for typoes/grammar I'm caught! :wall:
The second paragraph (the one following the list) doesn't sound perfect either. :stupido:
.
20 watt lightbulb?
There are loads of factions that would be extremely cool to have in the game, such as Galatians, Pergamon, Bastarnae, Illyrians, Belgae and many more already mentioned. I doubt many of them could be included though.
Anyway, here a couple of more factions that I doubt could be included and are probably not very historical but that I´m just dying to tell someone about, so please don´t say "that´s ahistorical" becasue I already know that.
Koinon Hellenon in the Western Mediterranean compromising the greek colonies Syracuse, Massalia and Emporion.
Some sort of Boshporan Kingdom in Chersonesos.
Ligurians based in Segesta.
Caledonians in Caledryn.
Some sort of Numidians, Mauretanians or the like on western northern Africa.
Anyway, I don´t think (nor am I sure I really want when I think about it) that any of these will be included in the mod, but I´ve been literally :wall: just because I couldn´t find anyone to discuss my ideas with.
You complaints should be directed to Alexander III and the aliens from Syrious that have mutated us to the state of super race :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Anyway Im just joking...
As for that nice little spyware that SEGA tried to shove down our throats I got rid of it months ago...and have been playing Kingdoms without it...
I think a Numidian and a bosphoran faction were being considered. As for the rest I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
A Numidian tribe, the Bosporean kingdom and a faction consisting of Massalia and it's colony Emporion were considered as factions. The Ligurians and Caledonians were not for obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
Right, so, just throwing in my two cents. I think that in the interest of maximizing unique factions and balancing out the game-board, it would make sense to get rid of these factions: casse, armenians, and aedui (or averni).
The reason for getting rid of casse is simply that to balance Casse out, another faction would have to be thrown up there; and as the British Isles were not renowned for exotic or amazing warfare, this faction would be very similar to the Casse, and thus a waste. Also, I find playing as Casse to be kind of a bore for the first century or so; just fighting against rebels the whole time. Getting rid of Case would free up space for one of the new factions I propose.
Getting rid of the aedui would also free up another space, and as it is a very similar faction to the averni, it is not needed.
In their place, I would like to see:
1) a strong, unique faction either between aedui and sweboz, in the nethersland area; or a faction in lower Germany and western France
*This would be to balance out the Aedui and Sweboz. This faction should not be sandwiched between them if at all possible, but they should all share borders in a triangular manner. It could incorporate alpine troops, or something to that effect.
2) an Indian faction
*To add more color to the eastern part of the map, and give it political intrigue on the same scale as in Europe.
3) A faction in Southern France and along the eastern Spanish shore
*This would check the Lus., challenge Carthage in Spain along the eastern coast, and give the Romans a good fight in westward expansion. To make this faction more interesting, incorporating special Greek units along the shore would be helpful, perhaps available only in particular cities, as is true for the K.H.
Also, a stronger Dacian faction would be good to check expansion in that area.
Ah, and I forgot: the reason I think the Armenians should be taken out is not because I do not like them, but because it will free up room for these other factions. Also, I do not believe it will upset the geo-political situation in that area. It will leave more room open to Pontus, which will continue to provide a threat to the Sec. Empire; in that way, its strategic influence will continue.
Cloudtripz, firstly, the edit button is your friend.
Secondly, how can a desire to maximise "unique factions" be reconciled with taking out 3 unique factions. The Aedui/Arverni are the same as they represent the battle for gallic turf that existed between the Old Power of the Gauls (the Aedui) and the usurper (the Arverni). To take out one is to basically ruin the other. Hayasdan is a beautiful and unique faction, an odd cross between persia, the steppes and later the greeks, their place on the map is unique (how could one of the most important mountain ranges in the ancient world go without a faction?!). Finally the Casse, with their fanatical devotion to the hero cult, which gives them a unique battle plan, are one of the most unqiue factions out there.
Thirdly, you do realise that EBII is on the MTW2 engine, and the MTW2 engine offers 10 more factions on top of the original 20. Why would we get rid of three when we have 10 new ones to fill.
Foot
Oops, I apologize, I totally thought there were limits to number of factions ...
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foot
Boii, Lugii, Helveti, Bosphorans...
A Northern European tribe(Norway, Sweden,) could put those Germans in there place. And it would be a good faction to stop the Sweboz from expanding faster so they would have to worry about there northern flank. Thus bring them to fight north and to there west. The Sweboz always in my game were this chunk of red expanding every where.
The problem would be that if I've understood correctly the Sweboz represent roughly the northern-most occurrence of enough political unity and structure to make a faction around 272BC, though...
I might could find some stuff, your from the or around area, do you want to help on the research if its at all possible for them create such a faction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
These are the ten new factions that I think would be the most appropriate for EBII:
Five Celtic (and mixed Celtic) Factions:
The Galatians
A Celt-Iberian faction - the Arevaci or Vaccaei
The Treveri (Celto-Germanic)
The Bastarnae
Another faction in Gaul to compete with the Aedui and Arverni - the Carnutes, Sequani or Senones
It seems like a lot of the same (and a strange personal choice, as I rarely play as the Celtic factions), but each one of these is quite varied and different to each other (except perhaps for the last). They also help to prevent ridiculous AI Eleutheroi expansion, and force the AI factions to fight against each other. Galatians threaten Pontos, Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Celt-Iberians have the same effect on the Lusotana, Carthage, and the Gallic factions, the Treveri could help stop the Sweboz western expansion, as well as causing more trouble for the Gallic factions. The Bastarnae could possibly hamper Sweboz eastern expansion, and interact with the Getai, Sauromatae, and any other new factions in this region. And finally, I think that a third Gallic faction would more realistically present the state of Gaul in this period, and create a greater challenge for the Gallic player and AI.
Three city-states - Massalia, Syracuse and Kyrene
These would also prevent the AI taking very strong provinces as a result of Eleutheroi hunger. Massalia would add a further dynamic to Gaul, which would mean that the region, if the factions listed above were implemented, would have very few Eleutheroi provinces. Syracuse is another roadblock for Epeiros and Rome (and to lesser extent Carthage), while Kyrene breaks up the inevitable Ptolemaic-Carthaginian wars. It would be good to give these city-states their own particular flavour, and perhaps limit their imperial expansion but make them strong in home defence (scripted armies?).
A Numidian Faction - the Massyli
This faction would be a godsend in preventing Carthage's African Eleutheroi Empire. It would also be interesting to apply some of the featues of the nomadic factions to a faction in this part of the world. This faction will most likely make it in, and the one that I am looking most forward to playing.
The Bosporan Kingdom
This one has already been discussed quite a bit, and with good reason. It would have a varied and exotic unit roster, as well as a rather unique starting position for an Hellenic faction. It would be ideal, however, if this faction could be made to interact with Asia Minor and Greece, rather than merely expanding into the Steppe.
Other contenders - in order of most appropriate to least appropriate:
Noricum
The Lugii
Pergamon
A second Germanic faction (though I did suggest the Treveri and Bastarnae above)
Tylis (i.e. a Celtic faction in Thrace)
A Skythian faction
An Irish faction
Most of these were rather weak during the period of EB. Even so, I think that the first three are definite contenders (though I know that many do not like the idea of a Pergamon faction). An Irish faction would really only be significant for the Casse player. I think it's quite clear that there will be no Illyrian, Indian, Thracia, or Kushite faction.
Any thoughts on these suggestions for new factions in EBII?
Ok, I will go again with my suggestion:
Attalid Kingdom, Illyrian Kingdom, Kush Kingdom, Indian Kingdom (I think maybe two Indian kingdoms), one from China if possible (AND you have the China mod for that - it is very, very nice), Syracusai-Kyrene... + maybe .. Indo Greeks betwean Baktria and India?:curtain:
Hey, I'm from the chunk that first started getting some semblance of larger political unity in the 1100s AD - and that was brought by the Swedes when they took over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by SixFeetUnder14w
Far as I know the rest of Scandinavia wasn't much better off in terms of political organisation until the damn Viking times. Latter parts thereof, too, since all the little tribes and kings and whatnots weren't very keen on or receptive to some wonk telling them what to do.
Before the Baktrians came down from the Hindu Kush, wasn't there like... a few thousands of those guys or something ? Not exactly what I'd call a major mover and shaker...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
That was sarcasm wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimus
A THIRD Gaulish faction? Hopefully not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turnus
Already, at least in EB I, the AI Arverni/Aedui have enough problems with one another, and usually either the Romans start conquering Gaul, or BOTH Lusotanians and Romani fight to become the masters of southern half of Gaul (and later possibly the norhern half's, too).
I've yet to witness a Gaulish faction to do any significant expanding (beyond Gaul).
No - it is my bad :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Admetos
But can one Indian faction be in anyway?
And about those Indo-Greeks - I ment the regions betwean India and Baktria - I just did not know how to call them :shrug: ... you know, in EB there were some states betwean India and Baktria that are rebel but were once under Alexander and still have some hellenic marks.. maybe a faction would be nice there :shrug:
Hello!
As you can probably guess by my name, my favourit faction is already in there, but I will list some factions I would like to see anyway.
1. Numidia: Not only because there is an urgent need for a north african faction to compete with the Carthaginians, but also because they played an important role in the punic wars, and even more so,in the Jugurthine wars.
Their unit rooster would probably consist of light cavalry and infantry, with elephant support.
2. Some eastern faction: I can't seem to think of any powerful enough to motivate a faction though. Perhaps some Seleucid satrapy, which, like the Baktrians, starts off as a Seleucid ally. Maybe the Persians. To my knowledge, they were more of a vassal to the parthians during their reign, anyway.
3. Boii: There have been a lot of discussions about some eastern european faction, and the Boii are, in my opinion, the best candidates.
4. Some Scythian-hellenic kingdom. Although the Scythians were i decline at the time, they were still present on the north-western shore of the black sea, although intermixt with the hellenes there. This faction could have an interesting mix of greek and steppe units, and, once again in my opinion, would make more sense than a bosphoran kingdom faction, which was basically a vassal to Pontus, at least during the later stages of the EB-era.
5. Thrace was one of my favourite factions in "Vanilla" RTW, but as EB starts after the collaps of Lysimachus kingdom, such a faction would be ahistorical.
If there were any powerful thracian kingdom at the time, it would be a great addition, but another possability is top include either Bithynia or the Attalid kingdom. This would not only add extra flavour to this already interesting area, but also give a more accurate representation of the political situation in western Anatolia.
Finaly, as the idea of Meroë as a faction has been rejected, another faction in this part of the world would be welcome. Perhaps Charakene. Apparantly, their kings called themselves "Kings of the Arabs", and this seems to indicate thet they were not entirely without ambition. Otherwise maybe Nabateans.
Anyway, I'm sure that whatever factions trhe EB-team chooses to include, they will be great, and a lot of fun to play!
Go EB2!
Caucasian Iberia would be an interesting addition, though it might be too crowded with Armenia nearby, and one or the other would inevitably be choked. If emerging kingdoms like Pergamon are being considered, I would vote for Charakene or the Scythian kingdom of Skiluros.
The main power in India at this time was the Maurean Empire, but since it would be mostly of the map (and seems to have shown little interest in expanding west) it is definetly not going to be a faction. A Maurean Satrapy, on the other hand, has been mentioned as a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Heading back to North Africa, I have thought a bit about that Numidian faction I mentioned earlirer, and came to the conclusion that this might be better represented by two factions.
Perhaps one Massylian-Numidian and one Mauretanian faction. (I think someona had this idea earlier, though...) This would surely make this part of the map far more interesting.
I do not know much about the political situation of this area in 272 b.C., but I know that during the Jugurthine wars, there were two separate kingdoms there, who were allies. (The Massylian-Numidian king Jugurtha was betrayed to the Romans by the Mauretanian king, Bocchus, though.)
Given the 10-faction restriction, I know two new north african factions might be a lot to ask for, but I think it would both give a more realistic representation of the area, and improve gameplay, while it would severely hamper the Carthaginian quest for African domination.
Methinks the earlier counter bears repeating:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
The Mauryan "autonomous satrapy" possibility Ludens mentioned is of course a different thing (and would pretty much be what the pre-Baktria Indo-Greeks were under anyway, if I've understood correctly).Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Here are my suggestions:
1. Yuezhi (emergent faction)
2. Mauryan Empire
3. Numidia
4. Nabataea
5. Bosporus
6. pergamon
7. Illyria or other European faction
8. Rhodes
9. Cyrenecia
10. Mauritania or another European faction.
Presumably some form of scripting would be possible, if certain conditions were met, to enable the off-map Mauryans to open a can of whup-ass on the IndoGreeks if they got too autonomous (read: big / rich / outside India)? For gameplay and variety I think this would be a great faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I'd also love to see
1. Sciri
2. Bastarnae
These could provide a bit more colour in E. Europe and constrain the Getai / Sweboz.
3. Bosphoran Kingdom
Interesting unit roster and map position.
4. Massyli
All sorts of gameplay possibilities and a good anti-faction for Kart-Hadast.
5. & 6. Additional tribes in the British Isles [Silures?] and Spain, though I have no ideas which...
And of course Meroe, if it were at all practically possible... which it appears it is not. I have come to terms with my disappointment.:shame:
Why don't most of the guys read the rest of the bloody topic. This is a discussion and it is starting to look like a converstion with a very very drunken guy:
- Hey, I want to go home!
- You drunken b@stard! You already are home!
- But I want to go home!
- YOU ARE HOME!
- Take me Home!!
What I meant is that some factions were obviously ruled out and still they are being suggested. Which is the main reason there are 13 pages on this topic. If you still insist to voice your opinion, please make a poll which will obviously be useless.
Just putting this out here as my 2 cents, but what about Qatabân? They seem to have been an Arabian faction whose star was on the ascendant during Eb's time period, in contrast to the Sab'yn, who were struggling by this period.
But then 2 Arab factions probably wouldn't work out, and in any case it would mean one replacing the other, which would be no fun at all, so I guess there's little chance of seeing this other Arab power :no:
I didn't want to start a new thread so I decided to post here ~D .
I would like to bring a bit more attention to Meroe, even after it was decided it certainly won't be in eb2. I was discussing a lot about the Nubian kingdom in this and the AtB thread and I've come to some ideas I would like to share. If there was a possibility to add Meroe (enough faction and culture slots), the main problem would be the Nubian military.
They would start only with a limited unit roster which, as described by Strabo, would include spearmen, axemen, swordsmen and archers.
When they desired three days for consideration, and did nothing which they were bound to do, Petronius attacked and compelled them to fight. They soon fled, being badly commanded, and badly armed; for they carried large shields made of raw hides, and hatchets for defensive weapons; some, however, had pikes, and others swords. Strabo, Geography
Nubians also had cavalry - as the prophet Isaiah said, Jerusalem had seek help from the Nubian king because of its "trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen". Nubian king Pye was even buried with his beloved horses. In EB time-frame though their cavalry would not be of much value, it would be best represented by the Ethiopian cavalry.
Elephants would be probably also part of Nubian warfare, as they were one of the biggest exporters of them.
The change would come after Nubia would successfully conquer part of Egypt. Nubians could get a reform (something like Restoration of Nubian Pharaohs). My idea is that Nubian pharaohs would act much like the Late Period pharaohs. The pharaohs of the Egyptian Late Period considered the local soldiers to be unreliable and started to settle foreign mercenaries in Egypt (Ionians, Carians, Jews, Arameans and Phoenicians).
Apries having heard this also, armed his foreign mercenaries and marched against the Egyptians: now he had about him Carian and Ionian mercenaries to the number of thirty thousand; and his royal palace was in the city of Sais, of great size and worthy to be seen. So Apries and his army were going against the Egyptians, and Amasis and those with him were going against the mercenaries; and both sides came to the city of Momemphis and were about to make trial of one another in fight. Herodotus, The Histories
The settled mercenaries formed a core of the Late Period armies. The last native pharaoh was defeated by Persians in 343, only 11 years before the Alexander arrived in Egypt! When the Nubians invaded Egypt in 743 BC they quickly adopted Egyptian culture and along with that, Egyptian warfare. Why something similar couldn't happen later? After conquering part of Egypt, Nubians would be easily able to hire Greek mercenaries from the settled Greek population. Accompanied with Nubian and Egyptian troops the Greeks would form the late Nubian armies. The Greeks would be probably recruited in native MIC because historically pharaohs of the Late Period didn't rely on client/allied rulers to support them with mercenaries. Settled mercenaries were more like pharaoh's personal guard, so ingame they would be part of native MIC.
For the Nubian governments I would suggest:
1.Kushite royal province - ruled directly by Pharaoh
2.Kushite nomarchy - ruled by nomarch
3.Kushite subjugated tribe/kingdom - occupied territory
4.Kushite allied kingdom - allied territory
I thought of making a minimod which would add Nubia as a playable faction. The best platform would be AtB because it has free faction and culture slot and enough space in East Africa region for a new faction. But I don't have enough time and skills to do it myself :wall: (and seems it will take a long time before the AtB will be released).
So, any thoughts on these suggestions? Also if anyone knows about some good sites or books about Nubia/Meroe and Late Period Egypt, please let me know :bow: .
(please forgive me my poor English :sweatdrop: )
Here are some sites where you can find information about Ancient Nubia and Egypt:
Nubia:
http://www.nubianet.org/about/index.html
http://wysinger.homestead.com/mapofnubia.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/nubia1.html
Late Period Egypt:
http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn30.htm
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/timelines/topics/army.htm
An article about Nubian conquest of Egypt in National Geographic
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...aper-text.html
(surely not the best source of historical information, but can give a image of how Nubians and their culture looked like :egypt: )
Here is what I could scrounge up in the best book I could find on them:Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
If you are interested, this would be a good place to start a unit lineup with. They would probably be a faction if we had five more slots, but they aren't on the borderline (of getting into EB2 as their own faction). Hope we have some good local units for EB2 in these lands though, but they will still have to share the Carthie/Sabaean/?:grin:?/?:grin:? culture group, and thus won't have nubian looking generals.Quote:
Saw a good looking book on Kush and checked it out. It's a 1998 book called The Kingdom of Kush, by David Welsby, British Museum excavator in the Sudan since 1982.
It has a little about the Kush army, here are some highlights:
"The people to the south of Aswan... were famed as archers, and this concentration on archery is a feature of Kushite armies. The stela of Harsiyotef records a number of campaigns in which the king sent out his bowmen to do battle with a variety of foes. Nastasen also sent his bowmen against the chief Kambasuten and against a number of rebel groups. The Harsiyotef inscription also mentions the use of horsemen. Kushite cavalry may be depicted on the south wall of the podium at the Sun Temple, Meroe, where there are several galloping horsemen armed with lances and wearing some sort of helmet. There is no evidence for the use of the camel in Kushite warfare and this may be compared with the rarity of dromedarii in the Roman army, which also operated in similar arid areas.
Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, describes Kushite soldiers who were part of the army of Xerxes as follows:
"The Ethiopians were clothed in panthers' and lions' skins, and carried long bows, not less than four cubits in length, made from branches of palm trees, and on them they placed short arrows made of cane; instead of iron, they were tipped with a stone, which was made sharp, and of that sort on which they engrave seals. Besides this they had javelins, and at the tip was an antelope hortn, made sharp like a lance; they had also knotted clubs. When they were going into battle they smeared one half of their body with chalk, and the other half with red ocre."
Archaeology graphically confirms some of Herdotus' observations. Although objects of copper-alloy and iron are known from early in the Kushite period, arrowheads of stone are a common find in royal tombs as well as in the more humble graves. Among the stones employed were flint, quartz, and carnelian."
"Over 400 years later Strabo, describing the Kushite troops that opposed the Roman army, noted that they were badly armed. Most were equipped with a large shield made of raw hides and hatchets. Some, however, had pikes or swords. Elsewhere he notes that the Kushites used bows of wood four cubits long and hardened by fire."
"From the weaponry recovered from graves the evidence for the importance of archery is overwhelming, although much of this ordinance may have been for hunting."
"...The special quiver provided for these arrows and the discoloration on the arrowheads have been though to indicate that these were poisoned arrows. This quiver is a copper-alloy cylinder suspended from a chain and with bells attached. Other examples are of leather, often very elaborately decorated."
"Remains of bows are very rare."
"The presence of the archer's loose implies the use of the Mongolian release, where the thumb holds the bowstring, rather than two or more fingers being used, as in the Mediterranean release."
"Spear or lance heads, one of the latter with a hollow iron shaft, are frequently recovered from graves, as well as rare examples of swords. A sword recovered from tomb Beg.W.134 at Meroe, unfortunately published without any measurements, appears to be a long thin weapon with parallel sides and a pointed tip. A similar weapon with a rounded pommel at the end of the hilt is depicted on a relief at the Sun Temple at Meroe in the right hand of a warrior, who wears the scabbard suspended by a strip high on his right side."
"Prince Arikhankharer is shown wielding an axe on a sandstone relief probably from Meroe, and axe heads, albeit not of this type, have been found in Kushite graves."
"There is very little evidence for the use of body armour by the Kushites. The war god Apedemak and a number of rulers are depicted on reliefs wearing what appears to be scale armour. However, there is no evidence that this was actually armour. This type of costume is common in Egyptian iconography, particularly on representations of Amun, in contexts where the wearing of armour would not be apposite. No armour of this type has been recovered from excavations on Kushite sites."
A cuirass was found among grave goods at Karanog - "the cuirass was made of leather with the hair left on the outer side. The leather has been worked up from within into a decorative relief pattern of knobs and bars. The use of shields is noted in the ancient sources. Graffiti at Musawwarat es Sufra shows warriors with large sub-rectangular shields. Shield bosses have occasionally been identified in the archaeological record."
"Arrian records that before elephants were employed in warfare by the Macedonians and Carthaginians, they were used by the Ethiopians [Kushites] and the Indians." "The elephant is described in Kushite art. At Musawwarat es Sufra reliefs of elephants are common. One of these shows a king riding an elephant." "On the northwest wall of the Lion Temple a file of elephants leads prisoners on ropes. Among the rare accounts of battles between Kushites and the outside world there is, however, no record of elephants being employed."
"There is again no evidence that the chariot was used in a military context, although light two-wheeled horse-drawn vehicles are depicted in processions."
They basically had as a threat nomadic raiding parties. "To combat such assailants the Kushite bowman and horseman will have been ideal."
.
I bet my galley slave's left arm that one of the ?~D?s are a Numidian faction. :yes:
.
I came across an Early argument from one of the Mods on the TWC about the Clouds Across Europe Mod saying they can only get 30 Factions max.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Some have argued 30 Playable including Rebels making 31.
:thumbsdown:
Its 30 playable factions + 1 rebel.
Foot
Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Two new semitic factions, eh?
This gets more exiting every day!!!
A Irish faction would be good, it keep the casse ocupied for sometime
Is one of them the Kingdom of Axum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
@Teleklos: Thanks for the help! :bow:
@I Am Herenow: I doubt that. Axumites weren't Semitic, they were Ethiopians. I guess those two ?~D? factions are the Nabateans and Numidians.
...There isn't gonna be a pure Black African faction. Get that through your heads.
If you want that fix play Broken Crescent; and, the only one, Makuria, sucks ass unit wise.
Edit
One out of many, many many.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Hail
Have you considered the Calidonians as a new faction for EB2? They will be a threat both for the Casse and the Sweboz...the only problem is that not much is known about them...
Sorry if this has been asked before I didn't read the whole thread..
Although I am not a team-member, they definitely won't be in. For a faction to make it into EB, it has to be unified and at least a regional power. The problem with the Caledonians is that they were not unified, and not exactly a power either. They were a pain to whoever controlled the area of the Brigantes, but that applies to so many tribes, and I don't think they had the politically sophistication to consolidate any gains beyond Caledonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klearchos
To my knowledge there are two candidate factions in Britain, these being the Brigantes and the Erain.
The Attalid Dynasty of Pergamon would be a very good idea, I have to say. A lost memory to Lysimachos with a combination of Hellenic, Makedonian and Thraikian troops.
Good stuff...