New factions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Atrebates fleed to Britain due to Caesar no? So that's not really the same thing.

---

I don't believe so, there were two populations of Atrebates either side of the channel prior to the Gallic Wars. Two things suggest this, firstly we are informed by the historical sources that Commois fled Gaul to Britain in order to join his own people, considering that Commios had been waging a succesful Guerilla campaign by recruiting his own people in Gaul that suggests that Atrebatic peoples were present on either side of the channel. Secondly the archaeology of southern Britain does not suggest that there was a large scale migration of new peoples in the small timescale of the Gallic wars, thus there must have either been only a few (very very influential) individuals or the Atrebates must have been arriving in Britain for a long time before the Gallic wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I don't believe so, there were two populations of Atrebates either side of the channel prior to the Gallic Wars. Two things suggest this, firstly we are informed by the historical sources that Commois fled Gaul to Britain in order to join his own people, considering that Commios had been waging a succesful Guerilla campaign by recruiting his own people in Gaul that suggests that Atrebatic peoples were present on either side of the channel. Secondly the archaeology of southern Britain does not suggest that there was a large scale migration of new peoples in the small timescale of the Gallic wars, thus there must have either been only a few (very very influential) individuals or the Atrebates must have been arriving in Britain for a long time before the Gallic wars.

---

You might be right, I'm no specialist in this part of history. Just seemed to remember something else. I don't have time to look into this, so I'll just thrust your judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I'll just thrust your judgement

---

:laugh4:

Regarding the Atrebates, assuming they were present on both sides of the English Channel at EB's start date, would it be reasonable to represent both groups as a single faction? That is, were they under the same leadership?

I don't think any of us think they were already on both sides of the channel at the game's start. Possibly they weren't even in the region the Romans called Belgica yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I would like to see the trans-Alpine Gauls represented as three separate factions: Allobroges, Celts, and Belgae.

---

Thats just bizzare, why did you seperate the Allobroges from the rest of the Gauls? Why do you think having the Belgae lumped into one group is acceptable considering we know of numerous individual independent tribes? Seriously, Celts?

Quote:

---

I would like the Illyrians properly represented.

---

So do we, it just seems you have a different veiw on how to do that.

Quote:

---

I would like to the see the Numidians and Massylians presented after Carthage's fall.

---

Do you mean as a emergent faction? That wouldn't make any sense, the Massylians coexisted with Carthage, they didn't just spring to life at the end of the Punic wars. Also the Massylii were numidians (or at least a part of them) so why would you then want a seperate "Numidian" faction?

Quote:

---

I would like to see the "Scythians."

---

If you mean as a faction then it won't happen. They were very weak and with the Bosporan Kingdom and the Sauromatae already factions they wouldn't be bringing anything new that could merit their inclusion.

Quote:

---

I would like to see the Saba eliminated as a faction.

---

Well your entitled to your opinion but we respectfully dissagree.

Quote:

---

I would like to see the Indians introduced.

---

The fact that the Mauryans territory was mostly off the map means they won't be included.

Quote:

---

I would like to see the other "Successors:" Bythnia and Pergamon.

---

Well Pergamon is already in so you can at least be happy on that front.

Quote:

---

I would like to see the Thracians.

---

You already do, the Getai are Thracian.

I think if we did include a faction named celts, it would be rather overpowered and would consume Rome within a few decades. Then it would carry on to absorb everything it is path until it meets the Indians. I guess they'd be fighting to completely conquer our map. Sound like a cool game though. Perhaps we should include a faction called the Chinese and Africans as well? Damn the Italian factions will be a hard one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I think if we did include a faction named celts, it would be rather overpowered and would consume Rome within a few decades. Then it would carry on to absorb everything it is path until it meets the Indians. I guess they'd be fighting to completely conquer our map. Sound like a cool game though. Perhaps we should include a faction called the Chinese and Africans as well? Damn the Italian factions will be a hard one...

---

No mention of either Bartix or the Spice Girls. Moros, you disappoint me :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I'll just thrust your judgement.

---

Your a braver man than me, lol.

With regards to B_Ray, although it is possible that they were under the same leadership, as represented by the tale of Commios, I agree with Moros that they were unlikely to have been present on either side of the channel in 272BC. Personally I favour a date of arrival of c100BC in line with the Gallo-Belgic type C coinage and the funerary evidence from Westhampnett in West Sussex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

No mention of either Bartix or the Spice Girls. Moros, you disappoint me :p

---

I think there was already enough silliness posted on these last two pages...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I would like to see the trans-Alpine Gauls represented as three separate factions: Allobroges, Celts, and Belgae.

I would like the Illyrians properly represented.

I would like to the see the Numidians and Massylians presented after Carthage's fall.

I would like to see the "Scythians."

I would like to see the Saba eliminated as a faction.

I would like to see the Indians introduced.

I would like to see the other "Successors:" Bythnia and Pergamon.

I would like to see the Thracians.

---

Either you're trying to be funny or you really are this poorly informed. Either way, fail.

Like an Irish deerhound on the trail of a stag one mention of Iron Age Britain and oudysseos follows the scent to the thread.

With regards to SLickNiga I likewise see little point in the Saba, they were not terribly expansionist and I would prefer to see them replaced by a Celtic faction in Europe, however, I would support their inclusion as they do represent a long lasting cultural and political force in Arabia and their removal would prompt people to call for the removal of the Casse, a faction who barely interact with the rest of the game. Thus I would rather see the Saba stay in, if only to give credibility to the Casse inclusion. Also, why on earth meld the Averni and Aedui into a single "Celt" faction but leave the Allobroges as a seperate faction. If the Belgae were included (OH GOD PLEASE!) it wouldn't be a bad idea to balance out the Aedui-Belgae alliance (forgive me if I have interpreted the political situation in Gaul incorrectly) with that of the Arverni-Allobroges.

On another note what about the Aetolians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

On another note what about the Aetolians?

---

This was posted on the Faction Speculation Thread over at TWCenter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulus

We've certainly considered adding the Aitolians as a faction. We could do them up a nice unit roster, it would work fairly well. Except that they wouldn't even touch a rebel region. They would be entirely sandwiched between other factions. So we're doing something slightly different instead, only I can't tell you yet what we're doing...

---

I have no idea how to interpret that, but it seems to be pretty clear in implicating that the Aitolian League will not be a playable faction.

I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

I've asked this (about the diplomatic stance of Kartli) before and the response of Foot was:

---

Originally Posted by Foot
Kartli was in an alliance with AS against Hayasdan. But it wasn't an active war as far as we can tell. Hayasdan had just supported the King of Kappadokia against the AS, and so the AS needed to keep an eye on Hayasdan. To do this they gave support to Kartli. They weren't at war, but they weren't best of friends either. Had Hayasdan become agressive, she would have been caught in a pincer between the two nations. Kartli, on the otherhand, had a bit more free reign and was beginning to move into the colchis region (which, at the time, was ruled by a lot of little minor princes, rather than a unified land.

Foot


....and Kartli did, eventually, suffer from interference by the Hayasdan, becoming a 'vassal' Kingdom (with a son (Artaxias, known in the medieval Georgian chronicles as Arshak) of the Armenian King - possibly Artavasdes I, being made King (and marrying into the previous royal family).

So, a 'Kingdom of Kartli' incorporating Colchis? Who knows? I think the danger would be in having too powerful a faction that, as has been suggested, weakens Hayasdan too much....Although it is, perhaps, no accident that Armenia's greatest expansion occured reasonably soon after the 'subjugation' of Kartli...?

My spider sneses tingle when Kartli comes up. Dunno why but my guess is they were a borderline faction for EB with an "interesting" location on the map, a sweet (if not quite iconic) faction specific unit and some historical action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

This was posted on the Faction Speculation Thread over at TWCenter.



I have no idea how to interpret that, but it seems to be pretty clear in implicating that the Aitolian League will not be a playable faction.

I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.

---

Well the EB team told us a lot of times they found a new way to interpret the Koinon, so my guess would be one of the options will be to "evolve" into an alliance simmilar to the Aetolian league. They've said many times you won't be able to conquer much with this faction without giving something up, so it could mean that the you form some sort of league... I dunno :)

Regarding Kartli: I think you could represent them moving into the Colchis region by giving them the PSF of that province.

Quote:

---

I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section.

---

(emphasis mine)

I'm sorry, but that is just plain old wrong and you should probably double-check just how far south the Ptolemaioi go... Because they have Triakontaschoinos and Erythraia, at most you could get rid of three provinces: Saba, Qataban and Dt'amat, before you'd have start doing some serious fiddling with those two Ptolemaioi territories (along with the rebel territories of Ma'in and Zufar), which would all have to inflate and change shape in order to get rid of Kush and Hadramaut without leaving "gaps" in the campaign map...

That's only five territories (again, any further north than that and you start shaving off the southern end of the Ptolemaioi) and quite a hell of a lot of work for very little gain I would think...

Also, your claim that this represents the "southern third" of the campaign map is just absurd... The image of the EB campaign map I have open right now is 1546 pixels tall. A third of this is 1030 pixels and running a line across the map at that point I discover that you've just cut away almost the entireity of the Ptolemaioi and one Karthadastim province, the line sitting right on top of the mouth of the Nile and slicing away most of the Kart province of Syrthim...

Indeed, running a line across at 1400 pixels (the southern tip of the Ptolemaioi's southernmost province of Erythraia) and dividing 1400 by 1545 and multiplying by 100 to see what percentage of the map this represents, it actually comes to 90.6% of the map (or 88.9% of the map measuring from the southernmost tip of Ptolemaioi's second-southernmost province of Triakontaschoinos... So it's actually the southern tenth of the map that is solely inhabited by Saba, not the botton third... Quite exaggeration on your part if I may say so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.

---

The map was made long before the Saba were a faction in EB. In fact the opposite is actually true, one of the reasons Saba was chosen as a faction was to fill the gap down there in the map, which before just turned into a warzone between the AS and Ptolemaioi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The map was made long before the Saba were a faction in EB. In fact the opposite is actually true, one of the reasons Saba was chosen as a faction was to fill the gap down there in the map, which before just turned into a warzone between the AS and Ptolemaioi.

---

(emphasis mine)

Huh... really? Hmm, I suppose AS must've been blitzing down the right side of the Eremos, following the Persian Gulf, while the 'tollies went down the left, following the Red Sea... Eventually the two would meet in the middle (probably right around where Saba is now) and start duking it out... is that right?

imo the map size is very good and realisic to that point that while sailing around africa was possible but seldom practiced, sailing around arabia was far less seldom, which I find the most important thing about the map size^^

-someone who does not play Ptolemies or Saba(but is not in favor of kicking saba)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

imo the map size is very good and realisic to that point that while sailing around africa was possible but seldom practiced, sailing around arabia was far less seldom, which I find the most important thing about the map size^^

---

Sailing around africa? As far as we know no one accomplished that before the middle ages, sailing round arabia was practiced regularly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Trek

Huh... really? Hmm, I suppose AS must've been blitzing down the right side of the Eremos, following the Persian Gulf, while the 'tollies went down the left, following the Red Sea... Eventually the two would meet in the middle (probably right around where Saba is now) and start duking it out... is that right?

---

Yeah pretty much, in older versions of the map Eremos in Arabia was a seprate province that could be captured, so you just ended up with a load of stacks fighting it out in the middle of the desert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The map was made long before the Saba were a faction in EB. In fact the opposite is actually true, one of the reasons Saba was chosen as a faction was to fill the gap down there in the map, which before just turned into a warzone between the AS and Ptolemaioi.

---

Not exactly correct. It was also chosen, apart from its importance in trade in that part of the world, as otherwise Arabia would rebel to Pahlava (which it did often), which created a purple menace on both sides of the AS. It wasn't pretty, and Saba plays a very important role providing a creator faction for that entire region.

Foot

Quote:

---

I can't say that I'd miss Saba, mainly because it seems that the entire south third of the campaign map exists solely to fit them into the game. Leaving them out would mean that a good portion of the map could be cut and allow for a few more provinces in the eastern section. I know that's not going to happen, but I can certainly sympathize with those who would like it to. Since Saba's going to remain, I'd really like to have a Nubian faction as well. They (like Saba) would have a very unique roster and feel to them. And they'd give both Saba and the Ptolemaioi much needed competitors. Main problem is that they would necesitate their own culture slot, which isn't really an option. Oh well.

---

In my opinion the creation of a faction in Nubia might be interesting; I don't know the historical events that happened there, but I read that in IIIrd BC Strabo report a Nobatae faction controlled the territory, after the Meroe Kingdom...
I find very curious the Axum Kingdom, in Ethiopia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksumite

Won't work with the limited culture slots

wasent there this Phonecian or carthagian guy who (barely) managed to get arround africa?

afterall I meant to emphasise that that whereas not beeing able to sail around Africa is not a big loss ingame not having a path around arabia would indeed be sad.

But whole army fleets? I think if you wanted to do that all the admirals would laugh you in the face. Especially as you wouldn't know exactly where you are afterwards and how long it'd take,...
I don't know if it had been done in the Ancient times but it was quite a risky challenge even in the 15th century. Actually I don't think the shiptypes would have been very good at it. Perhaps they could go south a lot, but at southernmost tip of Africa, I think these ships would be hopeless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

wasent there this Phonecian or carthagian guy who (barely) managed to get arround africa?

afterall I meant to emphasise that that whereas not beeing able to sail around Africa is not a big loss ingame not having a path around arabia would indeed be sad.

---

I imagine your are thinking of Hanno the Navigator, no one knows exactly how far he went but we are certain he didn't make it all the way round, or even half way. The general consenus is that he reached either modern day Senegal or Cameroon before turning back.

but it's fun poping up in mesopotamia with all seleucid troops locked in asia minor :D

oh right, sorry the last time i've heard about him was in a "once apon a time" :D so a fairly long ago and b fairly unprofessional. it was just spooking around in my memory ;)

Quote:

---

wasent there this Phonecian or carthagian guy who (barely) managed to get arround africa?

---

Hanno the Navigator tried. He came as far as Ghana or possibly even further south but then they feared it would get only hotter and hotter (until the seas would boil). Then this exiled Persian guy was forced to try it as well, but he had to turn back as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Hanno the Navigator tried. He came as far as Ghana or possibly even further south but then they feared it would get only hotter and hotter (until the seas would boil). Then this exiled Persian guy was forced to try it as well, but he had to turn back as well.

---

Hax that is fascinating, is there much literature available on those travels? I would love to read it.