The EB team won't cut a single province off of the British Isles. That has been already decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
Printable View
The EB team won't cut a single province off of the British Isles. That has been already decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
But these are gameplay considerations rather than historical ones, which the EB team constantly distinguishes as criteria for inclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Ok I was a bit polemic there. WhatQuote:
Originally Posted by -Praetor-
What I meant is "The fact that the British Isles are on the map shouldn't be the single or a major reason for keeping casse as a faction in game because you could cut them out"
And don't get me wrong, I don't raise the plea that Casse should be kicked out.
I'm inclined to agree on the Casse analysis; my heart says keep them in, but my head points out that, especially with the game having the restrictions on units/factions/provinces it does, it does make a lot more sense to invest the potential savings elsewhere, where they can be more consistantly useful. Dont get me wrong, one of my favourite things about EB was that it included factions like Baktria and Epeiros; but because of both geography and AI limitations, this is one of the cases (like with Pergamon and many of the potentials on the list) I would argue the other way.
The questions are: How many other potential factions we know enough about that they could be included as a facion? Did they expand/were a miltary power? And would they add variety to the game? I think the last point is also important since I'd rather let Casse and/or Saba in than having a gazillion of exchangeable hellenic factions. Finally we should consider the starting point of a potential replacement for a "peripherical" faction, because replacing Casse by another faction on the outer rims of the map would't make any sense, right?
Casse represent something of a particularly questionable faction because they arent just peripheral, they're peripheral and strongly seperated geographically, which takes them to a whole different level of peripheral. Saba arent quite as bad, but the empty distances involved do put them towards that level too. Even Sarmations, Saka and Sweboz have regular and notable contact with 2-3 other factions. Thats because though peripheral, their geography doesnt create significant inherent problems to their ability to impact the game. Also, dont forget that the more factions you add to the periphery, the more contact you create for those around them too.
OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WarpGhost
The problem with that is two-fold as I see it:Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
1) The AI isnt exactly proven at being able to cope with it. If both Casse and the other factions were able to easily handle the geographic obstacles, it wouldnt be a problem at all (if only Casse can, then you create the additional problems as when a human plays them, rather than really solving anything).
2) You create the situation whereby nothing is solved if their influence is removed from Begium (it immediatly reverts to the same geographic problem as current); but also where they also have untouched heartlands from which to generate money (and possibly the occassional 'naval invasion' to drop off reinforcements, which the AI presumably manages better than actual aggressive naval invasions), which makes their influence disproportionate to the Belgium region itself when they retain it.
You guys are forgetting EBII's going to be on Kingdoms, naval invasions are much more common in that game which will mean the Casse won't be as isolated (or safe) as they are in EB.
Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Yes. Well, Divitiacus was a Belgae king, but he held power in Britain, from which we can deduct that there was interaction between the two regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Uhm, what? If anything, creation of cash cow regions is a terrible reason not to include a faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Even if Britain was not as developed as Gaul, Cassivellaunus had waged war against several other British tribes, so there was effort by tribes to exert control over each other through the use of arms and create hegemony, and not just patronus-cliens-relationships.
Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)
They're the Catuvellauni of later times who Caeser accused of supporting the gauls and belgae in their wars with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
It also makes any faction there more active on the continent and more open to invasion by continental powers which is essentaily fixes (hopefully) the main problems people have with the Casse (that they never seem to do anything beyond conquering britain and they never face any real threat from other factions).Quote:
That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.
100+ years after the start date?Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
Not to mention, this kind of supports my case that the isles were a prize for the continental powers rather than the home of a faction-worthy political institution.
It doesn't seem accurate for that region at that time. I don't think Britain was a center of great wealth in the world, which it turns into once the isles are united (because of the way the game engine works)Quote:
Uhm, what? If anything, creation of cash cow regions is a terrible reason not to include a faction.
Are you saying this is unique? Name a tribe that doesn't wage war with neighboring tribes. I'm wondering when a significant political entity actually emerged in the Isles, rather than a series of waning and waxing tribes.Quote:
Even if Britain was not as developed as Gaul, Cassivellaunus had waged war against several other British tribes, so there was effort by tribes to exert control over each other through the use of arms and create hegemony, and not just patronus-cliens-relationships.
Yes, it has. I'm just disagreeing with one selection.Quote:
Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)
What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Yes, but the EB team likes to make the point that its always open to reconsidering what its doing. So unless thats untrue, there's a fair number of people who still arent convinced about Casse, and their questions havent been addressed (although the official Saba answers I've seen have been more hand-wavey than solid game design sense, so its possible Casse inclusion isnt being taken as a mechanics question, as most non-EB posters are approaching it here; part of the justification for Saba I've seen was because of the importance of the Arabian peninsula in modern times, rather than a purely ancient history approach).Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
You were always such a tease:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
:beam:
Several factions accomplished very little and are yet included. KH springs to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Factions are likely included based on historical importance, gameplay reasons, and unique flavor.
Casse have a small amount of historical importance, but for gameplay reasons they are important and they certainly add unique flavor due to heroic units and reliance on chariots instead of cavalry.
Not much beyond making life a little more difficult for Caeser in his Gallic wars, the point is they tried. As Brave Sir Robin says many factions already in EB didn't accomplish much, the reason they're in is because the had the ambition to conquer other lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Gameplay shouldn't and, in theory, isn't a consideration. By the team's admission in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
By your own admission, their entire role in history was defensive, and they show up 100+ years after the start date.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
I don't think there's any comparison between the Greek city-states and the B.C. tribes of England in term of cultural development, addition to the historical record, and influence in world politics.
I never said their role was defensive, they were involved in wars away from their homelands helping their allies on the continent they didn't have to fight they chose to, thats a pretty agressive attitude in my eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Maybe they're mentioned first by caeser but archeology no doubt attests to their presence long before that and IIRC the faction leader is mentioned in Goidelic legend (and supported by archeology) as conquering all of the south west of britain around the start date.
Interesting. Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Source for the Goidelic legend?Quote:
Maybe they're mentioned first by caeser but archeology no doubt attests to their presence long before that and IIRC the faction leader is mentioned in Goidelic legend (and supported by archeology) as conquering all of the south west of britain around the start date.
And certainly archaeology will attest to the presence of humans on the Isles. I'm contesting that they were a significant power at the time the game starts. Hell, even 100s of years later.
Hey lobf, it seems that many members of the .org consider it much more polite if your request for a source is a longer sentence.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
A quick look gives:Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 3.9 Where Caeser mentions Britons joining the Veneti in their fight against him.
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.20 Mentions Caeser's reason for invading Britain, ie they were providing assistance to the Gauls.
Now i know this is all long after the start date but i imagine archeology testifies to similar things a lot further back in time. I'm no archeologist so i wouldn't know what sources were used but EB has team members who are so I'm willing to trust their decision in this matter.
You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.Quote:
Source for the Goidelic legend?
I think this one of those bits of EB for which the sources could not be found. A lot of the team's early Celtic material hasn't been properly referenced, so the team decided to redo most or all Celtic material for EB2.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Ah ok scratch off that one then.
If ye are really that interested in lPRIA Britain, there are a couple of books you need to have a look at.
Iron Age Communities in Britain and Ireland, Barry Cunliffe. The bible.
An Imperial Possession, Mattingly. Excellent.
The Britons, Snyder. Very Good.
The Iron Age in Northern Britain, Harding
Prehistoric Britain, Darvill
Ancient Britain, Dyer
The Forts of Celtic Britain, Osprey
I have to say that the suggestion that 3rd BCE Britain is not prima facie worthy of at least one faction is totally ludicrous. Do some reading.
Even as early as 272 BCE, Graeco-Roman influence was becoming profound in Continental Celtic/Gallic societies. In Britain we have the chance to imagine a society with much less cultural adulteration. Also, the archaeological record is tremendously rich. Cissbury, Maiden Castle and Danebury are some of the largest multivalate hill forts in Europe. Hengtisbury Head was one of the busiest ports. Some of the best overall examples of Celtic craftwork, shields, helmets, swords and chariots come from Britain.
The problem of course, is that the historical record does not begin until much later, so that we do not have a narrative to rely on for our story: but does that mean that we should abandon these people to the dustbin of history? In EB we are more inclined to take up the challenge and attempt to speak for history's silent people. All it takes is a little creativity.
Re: the name. I won't tell you what we are going to do about that yet. 'Casse' is of course a guess, as we don't even have numismatic evidence for the period, but it is a very good guess nonetheless. The Cassi are one of the tribes mentioned by Caesar, who is basically our earliest textual source, and in addition 'Cassi' is an element in many other kinds of names. But there are some other possibilities. Anyone know what they might be?
If you make a claim, be prepared to cite your evidence. I shouldn't need to charm you into having a proper discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
I didn't make a positive existential claim. I can't be asked to cite evidence to support that something didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
New here, are ye? :)Quote:
You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.
What do you mean you got it from the biography of one of the Casse leaders? You mean you heard it was from the biography of one of the Casse leaders?
I understand where you're going with this. Yes, they provided material assistance to the Gauls. On the other hand, Poland provides (or provided) material assistance to the US in Iraq. That doesn't make them a major world power. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
It would just be nice if someone would come out and show us whatever evidence they have.Quote:
Now i know this is all long after the start date but i imagine archeology testifies to similar things a lot further back in time. I'm no archeologist so i wouldn't know what sources were used but EB has team members who are so I'm willing to trust their decision in this matter.
I would love to. I've been asking for something to look at for ages. That era and that part of the world fascinates me, I look forward to reading those.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Would you mind summarizing some of the main rationales behind their inclusion for me?
From what era?Quote:
Even as early as 272 BCE, Graeco-Roman influence was becoming profound in Continental Celtic/Gallic societies. In Britain we have the chance to imagine a society with much less cultural adulteration. Also, the archaeological record is tremendously rich. Cissbury, Maiden Castle and Danebury are some of the largest multivalate hill forts in Europe. Hengtisbury Head was one of the busiest ports. Some of the best overall examples of Celtic craftwork, shields, helmets, swords and chariots come from Britain.
I guess I'm worried that a very conjectured interpretation of these people will make it into the final product and be taken as gospel by the general public. I'd just like to understand what you are basing your recreation off of.Quote:
The problem of course, is that the historical record does not begin until much later, so that we do not have a narrative to rely on for our story: but does that mean that we should abandon these people to the dustbin of history? In EB we are more inclined to take up the challenge and attempt to speak for history's silent people. All it takes is a little creativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CassiQuote:
Re: the name. I won't tell you what we are going to do about that yet. 'Casse' is of course a guess, as we don't even have numismatic evidence for the period, but it is a very good guess nonetheless. The Cassi are one of the tribes mentioned by Caesar, who is basically our earliest textual source, and in addition 'Cassi' is an element in many other kinds of names. But there are some other possibilities. Anyone know what they might be?
I'm at work, BTW, so this is kind of a rushed reply.
Lobf, it's great see you back on form. We've missed you!
However, while I do enjoy your "skipping record" style of conversation, perhaps its time to move onto another subject. We have told you and we will always tell you, "We do not have full records of all evidence that was bought forward during the early period of EBI (and throughout development there have been gaps). We cannot provide you with the evidence you so desperately crave at the moment. We are researching all factions and areas of our mod over again, and collating this information in a central depository so that we can check it in the future. We may or may not release this resource at some future date. We cannot talk about what we have planned for the Casse, or the British Isles in general, as we have not reached a point where we have the development at a level necessary to preview this stuff.
Your constant and consistent (I would say a very large majority of your posts on our two forums here is on the subject of the Casse) is unnecessary at this point (if it was at any point). Your hijacking of threads so that they are solely about this subject, your dominance in them, and your rather ungentlemanly behaviour (which you admit to) is frustrating and long overdue an end.
EBII is more than just a one-horse mod, and I think you've beaten this dead horse topic enough. If the Casse come up again, and some "dodgy" evidence is brought forward by fan, feel free to link them to my post and let them know that all evidence in EBII is being researched again. Then move on and [citation needed] our other factions, as they sorely need your attention!
Foot
Thanks Foot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
However, I think you've misunderstood me. I understand the old Casse stuff is either missing or non-existent. I'm not asking for that. I know that the faction is to be included in the next iteration of your wonderful mod, and I'm wondering, since we can ignore much of the older evidence, what it is you will be using to rebuild that culture?
I also know that there's so much more to EB than the European tribes. I'm just not so enamored with most of the rest of the world at that time as I am with the Europeans. Like the founders of this project, I long to see accurate, reasonable interpretations of the lives of these people. This isn't just a matter of challenging shaky assertions, but I want to know and learn about them, and I'd like to look at the same sources you do.
I know I'm a dick. Maybe it's my line of work (I work in the film business... nobody's got any patience for nonsense.) and I'm sorry that I bring some of that impatience or aggression to the forums. I just really like the barbarians, and I really like to talk about them. And I really like to argue. And I really don't like when people make assertions based on rumor or hearsay. (as happened in this very topic with the "goidelic legend")
Anyways, I'm trying to move on. Thanks for tolerating me (barely) and I look forward to seeing the new material you bring to the table in the future.
A bit harsh, it was based on what I read in the game, i don't have the time to check every last piece of information so i assumed the EB team, who spent a lot of time and effort making the mod, were more informed than me in this matter and included it for a good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Anyway just my final 2cents, it has been a intersting discussion:2thumbsup:.
Sometimes, I get tired of conquering the world and all...maybe play as a weak but famous faction struggling for its bare existence among surrounding super powers is interesting too, at least for a change.
To be honest, I always want to play as a single Greek city states, such as Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc.
For example I wish we could get Corinth as a faction starting as Macedonian protectorate...don't know if EB have some plan of province campaign.
I am very much looking forward to a Boii faction which I believe will serve as the axle of Europe, well situated in central Europe with obvious objectives towards the Helvetii and northern Italy they will be a great disabling faction forcing every nation around them to expand more appropriately (or over dead Boii bodies) while more realistically opening up the Celtic lay lines to the eastern Celtic world Tylis and Galatia.
Id love to see a Galatian faction but I can't think of a way to tie their politics to their relatives in Tolosa without flat out incorporating Tolosa into the Galatian faction which would obviously be unhistorical. Either way I suspect that without such a function, the Galatians wouldn't be considered "worldly" enough to be implemented. In a recent game as the Aedui I was one province away from smashing the Arverni and completing my last game objective when suddenly the Arverni acquired Galatia and two full stack armies. Which while hilarious and better then nothing would still be disappointing in EB2. Perhaps this presumably scripted event could occur for the Galatians if a non-Celtic faction captures Tolosa. (If no one has any idea what I’m talking about I can go into more detail about the Volcae Tectosages of Tolosa and their correspondence with the Volcae Tectosages in Galatia)
Other factions id like to see but almost certainly won’t be put in the game
Cimbri
Brigantes
Scordisci
Belloavaci
Veneti
Aravaci
I know next to nothing of the civilizations outside the Celtic nations.
Sacha, you just might be pleasantly surprised! (Is he lying? Only Foot knows! Bwahahaha).
Look, Lobf, I think that you miss the point sometimes. We will certainly provide as comprehensive a historical justification for the British faction* as we can when we are ready to do so, but it is not the case that the original framers of the Casse were mistaken or remiss or crazy: an interpretive direction was taken, one that was well grounded in the historical and archaeological record, and now with the expanded opportunities of the new engine, a slightly different direction is likely to be the result, just as well grounded in exactly the same historical and archaeological record. Try to get this, Lobf: both versions are equally "right" or "wrong" - in fact, that kind of characterization (right, wrong, true, false) is in itself inappropriate: we are interpreting, as best we can, the physical remains of an illiterate culture to fit the limits of the game engine that we have chosen. There are often many equally legitimate ways to interpret the evidence that we have, but ultimately we have to make some choices.
What I am trying to say is that with a faction like the Casse, the best that anyone can ever do is say, "This is how it could have been". Sometimes there are several ways that it could have been and we can only pick one of them. What we can't ever do is say, "This is how it really was", 'cos nobody knows that, even for many of the better documented Greek and Roman factions.
*Not giving anything away here: 'Casse', as I have said, is a very valid choice as a name for this faction, but it is no secret that there are some other possibilities. This is one of those 'multiple ways it could have been' scenarios: we can only give the faction one name even though there are several choices.
what do you think about Nanda Empire in India? :idea2:
Well EB 2 features only the north-western part of India so no Indian factions I guess...Quote:
Originally Posted by Visarion
Kind of hard since the Nanda empire had been gone for almost 50 years by EB's start date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visarion
If there was a Indian faction it would be the Maurya Empire and that would require the map to be extended much further east, given the limited number of provinces available it isn't likely to happen.
I hope some more Black Sea factions make it in, like maybe Thrace, Colchis (ancient Georgian kingdom) and the Bosporan kingdom. Altough any coastal faction would be nice. :yes:
btw heres a picture of the world in 300 bc, might give you guys a picture of what possible factions might be in.
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/ima...-Hem_300bc.jpg
I get the feeling that the Bosporan kingdom might be in. Don't read into that too much, I have absolutely zero access to information about this, I just have a weird hunch about them being in, more so than about any other possible factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by hekk
Maybe it's just my wishful thinking, as I think they would be really fun. Interesting starting position, interesting mix of Greek hoplitai and Skythian troops. I think they would be quite fun.
what about a Finno-Ugric faction? :D
Well, Colhhis was a Roman protectorate/province then. Another Georgian Kingdom -Kartli (Caucasian Iberia) would be a good choice for a new faction. It was independent, rival to Armenia and ally to Selevkids.Quote:
Originally Posted by hekk
Bosporan Kingdom as a new faction would be fantastic too!
Colchis was a roman protectorate in 300 or 272 bc?
If I was somebody else I'd probably just ask "Source?" but even with all my respect and kindness I doubt it.
Was not. It was a land of many princes without any common king. It had recently been attacked by Hayasdan, and was currently under the protection of the Iberian king.Quote:
Originally Posted by zurab
Foot
Well, I'd like to know why the Arctic Marine Mammal Hunters aren't a faction. That's just unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by hekk
Not gonna happen I'm afraid. There just isn't all that much information available about the early Finno-Ugric culture or population, and even less so about supposed early Finnish tribes/tribal kingdoms (like Kvenland).Quote:
Originally Posted by Visarion
However, I'd hope there'd be one unit to represent the Finno-Ugrics, in EBI there's four Baltic units but no Finno-Ugrians, tsch! It'd be hilarious to have some spear/axe-woodsman unit "Otsonpojat" or something. :laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Right you are, my mistake. Colkhis became province of Rome later.
Did not notice that we talk about 300 bc
I wonder about the Batavians, they were a power in the region and according to the Romans one hell of a warrior. And seeing that they came form the Chatti that isn't that weird. I've heard in this program that when they went to war Batavians would dye their hair red and the Chatti customs of having to kill someone to become a man also still applied for them. They were known to cross rivers in full equipment with their entire force often suprising the enemy and winning the battle. There's also a helmet design which they used which is now used by the Germanic Bodyguard in EB1.
They destroyed a couple of Rome's legions and if it wasn't for a Batavian traitor they might not have been forced to surrender.
Would be great as a faction, small but powerfull, perhaps not good enough to be a faction but definately deserving for an unit like the Chatti, Cherusci, Nervii who all were not your ordinary Germanic soldiers but fought or were armed somewhat different.
Well, although I'm a huge fan of germanic culture, I doubt that there will be more than one germanic faction in EB. All we know about them is from a time much later than 272bc. So the swebozez are already a tiny little bit speculative and it would be hard to make a new germanic faction without simply cloning the Sweboz.
Well Adui and Arverni springs to mind as well as basicly all Hellenic factions, similarity doesn't decide the faction. I'm pretty sure that we will see another faction in the area, perhaps an Belgic faction or the Lugii perhaps, I hope for another Germanic faction but we'll have to see for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
the arevaci will most certainly make it to the rooster considering their importance in the iberian peninsula and will make for a more accurate political geo strategical reality of this time period :book:
In that case, could you skip the Jewish kingdom in the overall campaign map,Quote:
Originally Posted by Al-Masri
but make a provincial campaign (a special map) in which the player can play as the Jewish kingdom?
XGM couldn't add all the factions on their overall campaign map, but they wanted the players to be able to play some extra factions, so in addition to the overall campaign map, they have 5 provincial campaign maps (Galatians, Pergamum, Chersonesus, Syracuse, Epirus). These provincial campaign maps are actually as big as the overall map, but the player can only play as one faction, the faction for which the provincial campaign was made for.
So, EB could skip over the ancient Israel faction for the overall campaign map (they could be included in Seleukia, or they could be a rebel province to be contested between the Arche Seleukid and the Ptolemaioi).
However, EB could have a provincial campaign, which is a specially designed campaign map (as big as the overall campaign), where the player can play as a special faction. So for ancient Israel, the start date could be in the year of 166BC, in the middle of the Makabim Revolt.
Few modification would be necessary to the map, except perhaps canceling a few towns from the periphery (like Britain, or the steppes), and adding a few towns in the Levant area (Jerusalem, Samaria, Hebron, Ashkelon, Gaza).
The player would start with perhaps a stack.
And something like 3 or 4 stacks of Seleucids are marching down the coast, in the first turn.
It's just really wonderful to be able to build shrines to Yahweh.
Researching the appearance of the Israelite units of that era shouldn't be very hard at all, there must be entire books available, easily found by asking the Jewish community.
And for every faction that doesn't make the overall campaign, the EB team could make a provincial campaign where the only playable faction is that special faction, like how XGM did it. A peripheral faction (most likely Britain, or Bactria) can be taken away in each of these cases, so that the extra faction can have a slot.
Also, for a faction like the Galatians, maybe the map can be changed, to extend from the Alps to the Levant. That way more towns can be included.
In fact, these provincial campaigns could be released as continual patches (expansions), to keep up the interest in EB.
A bad idea, I rather play world maps with the total limit of factions, if anything it will set people off since EB1 is managing just fine with the word map.
That's why there is a semantic difference between "being cloned" and "being similar".Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
I think 30 awesome factions will be enough to keep me interested. But fan mini-mod ahoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePianist
Well if we look at the Cherusci and the Chatti their society and warriors were also different. Similar as comparing Spartan and Syracusian Hoplites in EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
We have enough work to do as it is, without creating new factions, new units and new campaigns. We hope that the glorious depth and breadth of EBII will be enough to sate most people who play.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePianist
Foot
There are tens of factions more worthy to be included than the Maccabean state.
Well but Cherusci and Chatti are already in the Sweboz unit roster and cutting them would leve a hole in the already small roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
Plus, we have no records about different germanic tribes in 272bc but even for later times, I wouldn't know how to tell them apart by anything else but their name and location. If you have literature about this subject, I'd be greatful if you posted it.
I don't think it makes sense to give a faction slot to the Maccabean Kingdom. As has been stated on the EB1 forums many a time, it doesn't make sense from a gameplay or historical perspective. In terms of gameplay, they would almost certainly be crushed by the AS or Ptolies within the first 10 years, meaning that unless the player is playing them (or the AS or Ptolies), you're never going to even see them. Historically, a Maccabean Kingdom would be content with controlling the Jewish homelands, and would certainly not have any interest in building a huge empire, which is what would happen if they were controlled by the player. They are best represented by strong rebels and an especially rebellious population (which will be much better represented in EB2 due to the "people" buildings and the inclusion of more religious aspects).
There's absolutely no way we are going to have a Jewish faction in EBII.
This was announced in 2007 already.
Deal with it.
And yet there will still be hundreds of "Will there be a Jewish faction" threads between now and EBII's release date.
If this was in response to my post, I hope you understand that I was agreeing with you and trying to explain the reasoning behind it... I hope I wasn't misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Praetor-
What about Meroe? I found EB I left little to do in NE Africa. Meroe was an established and important kingdom at the time of the beginning of the mod and continued to be well into the Roman period. Meroitic armies invaded Roman Egypt and Roman armies struck back into Meroe. Furthermore, Meroe was an important trade area and something of an intermediary between the Mediterranean world and the African interior. I'd suggest Aksum/Axum, too, but that empire arose too late to qualify.
The land of Kush/Meroe/Nubia was known from millenia to produce excellent archers and brave, if ill equipped, infantry and cavalry. There are certainly good units to be made. Furthermore, both Romans and Kushites fought the Blemmyes, likely the ancestors of the modern Beja and inhabitants of the arid, gold rich Red Sea hills straddling the modern borders of Egypt and Sudan. Blemmye mercenaries could be new unites, as could Noba mercenaries in the far south.
The map could therefore include a few new provinces. One for the Blemmyes, and a few in Kush/Nubia, perhaps with borders at the cataracts of the Nile.
It doesn't make sense to me to include two nomadic, Iranian factions (Saka Rauka and Sarmatians) which did not have centralized political control, yet not include a long-lasting, economically and geopolitically important centralized state that fits within the geography and time frame of the mod. There is plenty enough information out there on the Meroitic period to create a faction, and I'd be happy to contribute information or at least recommend sources to check out (like archaeologist Derek Welsby's books). I'm glad to see the the Numidians included, I just hope the Meroites will be as well!
I think one of the problems with including Meroe is at least partially that it is on the very edge of the map. M2TW has the same province limit as RTW, so I sort of doubt that the EB team is going to remove 5 or 6 provinces from other parts of the map to put them all in one place at the very bottom of the map where most factions will never reach them.Quote:
Originally Posted by resodan
Not enough culture slots.
Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.
They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
Their traditions, the Chatti would remove the hair in the face once they made their first kill and would remove and iron ring around their neck. The Cherusci were known for their swords(but I think this still means the spear is the main weapon especially if they used oversized spears in the first rank) and close shield walls.
No, we don't go cutting provinces somewhere else because we feel like want to include a new faction. otherwise we would go for india over Meroe. Wingsington III has it right, and so do you. There are many reasons that Meroe isn't included.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
Foot
No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
There are like ten factions that we would prefer to incluide before the Maccabeans: the Cimbrians for instance, that ravaged through half of Europe, or the Yuezhi that flared the far east. But they are not making in because they appear too far from our starting year, even though they did shape this part of the world significantly.
The Maccabean kingdom didn't even do that.
I'm pretty sure, they are enabled by the native MIC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?Quote:
No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.
Holding history over gameplay isn't the same as throwing gameplay out the window, AVSM. I think it would be somewhat against EB's policy of accurately and equally representing as many factions on the map as possible to take multiple provinces away from these factions and place them on the very edge of the map where they only benefit one faction, whose lands extend off the map anyways, and cannot be represented accurately due to this fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
And yes, culture slots were another consideration, as Foot said, we were both right, I'm merely clarifying that I wasn't expecting anyone to put gameplay above history, but sometimes it has to be considered in order to preserve the historical accuracy of other factions.
Exactly, I'm in full agreement with you there. I was merely making sure I didn't get on the bad-list as one of the lobbyists...Quote:
Originally Posted by -Praetor-
Because we know it didn't exist in 272BC.:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
Because it didn't exist at all in 272 BC? Jerusalem was at that point controlled by the Ptolemeans. Furthermore, although with hindsight it was very important from a religious perspective, at the time the Maccabean revolt was little more than a local uprising against Seleucid rule. They certainly weren't an expansionist faction, so why give a faction slot to them if they could just as well be simulated by independents?Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
OOOPS! I totally confused the Maccabean kingdom with Meroe... Mea culpa.
Of course a jewish faction would be inapropriated.
Reasons why no Meroe (but please do try searching, as we cannot spend all our time answering the same questions over and over and over again).Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
1. No Culture Slot - Meroe are an Ethiopian faction, but they would look Arabian.
2. No Provinces - Most of Meroe and its expansion would be off the map. Edge factions are dodgy to begin with.
There are others, but they are not really necessary. The above is enough to express why Meroe aren't in EBII. Comparing the viability of Meroe to that of the Casse and the Sweboz is simplistic.
Foot
For Swêboz, all Germanic units are recruitable from the factional MIC only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
I don't see Cherusci or Chatti in. They are too close to the Swêboz and general knowledge is kinda sketchy anyway. Well, Chatti perhaps. But I would much rather bet on a Celtic faction.
Gotcha. I wasnt arguing FOR Meroe, because I dont care about them that much. I was just generally questioning, but I was also generally confused, so lets drop this :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Athanaric, I do agree with you. Thats why I like to have a moding team with the same manner of working as the eb team, working on a mod about a time when germanic tribes were more distinguishable. (Migration period, for example).
I hope an other faction (like Cyrene) will be included near to the Ptolemaic dynasty to bother them, because in most campaigns they don't really have enough playing mates and they become a superpower in the game in no time. :dizzy2:
Fair enough, I'm not a mod developer, just a player. Still, Kush was more enduring than the Sabaea (itself something of a , and under Meroe they were more centralized than numerous other already included factions. That, AND most Kushite territorybe on the map, assuming it's the same boundaries as EB I. It'd be fair to say, furthermore, that we know Kush/Nubia better archaeologically and historically than we do NE Europe at this time, which is very well represented in terms of provinces.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Don't mean to be a thorn in your guys' side, also didn't realize there were more considerations than simply being on the map and being important at the time of the scenario start. I just thought the proposition was a fairly decent one. *swallows inordinate pride* Anyway, I'll let it rest and will still play the game regardless. Actually, I'm rather looking forward to it! :)
...would there be any chance of Nubian archers as mercenaries, at least...? :p
I think there are some nubian units as regionals in EBI, correct me if I'm wrong, I dont usually expand that far south.