Faction List for EB2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by resodan

...would there be any chance of Nubian archers as mercenaries, at least...? :p

---

EB1 contains Ethiopian Swordsmen, Ethiopian Light Spearmen, Ethiopian Archers, and Ethiopian Medium Cavalry as regionals and at least some of them are mercenaries, so I'm assuming we will see these units in EB2 as well. I realize that technically these aren't Nubian units per se (who would have been located more in modern day Sudan, not Ethiopia), but they are fairly similar to the troops that would have been fielded by the Nubians, so you will probably be able to field Ethiopian Archers and maybe just roleplay that they are Nubians. You may even be able to change their name so that in your games they are called Nubian Archers (although I don't know what the native tongue name would be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

EB1 contains Ethiopian Swordsmen, Ethiopian Light Spearmen, Ethiopian Archers, and Ethiopian Medium Cavalry as regionals and at least some of them are mercenaries, so I'm assuming we will see these units in EB2 as well. I realize that technically these aren't Nubian units per se (who would have been located more in modern day Sudan, not Ethiopia), but they are fairly similar to the troops that would have been fielded by the Nubians, so you will probably be able to field Ethiopian Archers and maybe just roleplay that they are Nubians. You may even be able to change their name so that in your games they are called Nubian Archers (although I don't know what the native tongue name would be).

---

"The word 'Libya' means Africa, and so the majority of Africans came to be known as 'Libyans' to the Greeks. The major distinction that the Greeks made was when it came to colour. They generally referred to all negroid African populations as 'Ethiopians' and all others as 'Libyans'."

The Ethiopian units cover all the negroid African units in EBI, and will do so in EBII. I believe that, even still, there are some specific Nubian units that were open as regionals and particularly for Saba. I might be wrong.

Foot

Saba's doesn't get unique ethiopian/nubian troops. While they were certainly used by them, especially at latter times, they wouldn't look much different from other nubians. So they won't have unique troops, but they would have easier acces to them. But that's mostly because of their proximity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

"The word 'Libya' means Africa, and so the majority of Africans came to be known as 'Libyans' to the Greeks. The major distinction that the Greeks made was when it came to colour. They generally referred to all negroid African populations as 'Ethiopians' and all others as 'Libyans'."

The Ethiopian units cover all the negroid African units in EBI, and will do so in EBII. I believe that, even still, there are some specific Nubian units that were open as regionals and particularly for Saba. I might be wrong.

Foot

---

Ah I see, that makes sense, I was merely going by the unit description for the Ethiopian units where it says this:

"Historically, ancient Ethiopia (encompassing modern day Eritrea and northern Ethiopia) was at this time made up of many smaller kingdoms that waged wars against each other, but also against any foreign invaders, like the Nubians, Hellenes and Sabaeans."

I took that to mean that these units were examples of troops fielded by the smaller Ethiopian kingdoms and that the Nubians would have used different troops. However it makes more sense that these are just general troops that account for both.

I searched both in-game, in the recruitment viewer, and on the EB webpage faction list, and there do not appear to be any specific Nubian units, even for Saba. Of course, Moros just mentioned that above me, but I searched before he posted that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

I searched both in-game, in the recruitment viewer, and on the EB webpage faction list, and there do not appear to be any specific Nubian units, even for Saba.

---

Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burn_again

Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any

---

Interesting, I guess I just missed that one somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burn_again

Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any

---

Note that I was talking about EBII, and that I'm not talking about a nubian unit, but a unique nubian for the Sabaeans. The same is true for ethiopian units. Habashite mercenaries and troops were used in arabia, but there's no reason to believe they were unique in anyway, unlike special regiments of bedouins.

What about the Odrysian kingdom, a union of Thracian tribes that endured between the 5th century BC and the 3rd century BC. Where was I thinking... that's before the timeline... my mistake!

Is the faction list panning out "by the numbers"? There was an earlier posy about the likely factions being linked to units in EB1 9yes I know the unit roster has been revamped, but it was a guide to the areas EB team members felt worthy of development and representation).

We have added Pergamum, Numidia and now Bosphorans. The latter two were foreshadowed by having significant units or suites of units in EB1 (just missing the cut because of the faction limit).

That criterion might get Indian and Ethiopian factions in, but its been explained that the culture limit sinks this:no:.

Spots that have a suite of units almost amounting to a faction roster: Iran (as opposed to those Turanian Parthians) Thrace (including Gallo-Thrace), Iberia and Galatia. I guess Galatians are out, becuase they were not politically active in the EB era and turn up as mercs in the right faction rosters. There's a slim case for a couple of Iberian factions and/or Odrysians, and maybe a "persian successor" state.

Spots that have iconic factional units: Taras, Syracuse, Massillia, Bastarnae, Boii, Alpine Gauls. The last 3 have more "playability" in some ways, because they might be miore than one province and they might not be hemmed in on all sides by hostile giants. The possibility of another midnight isles faction looms: we know they were there, jusy nmot exactly who they were.

I only wish for a fish so juicy sweet, and a Mauryan chariot BG. What i'll get is a pretty good faction list

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I guess Galatians are out, becuase they were not politically active in the EB era

---

I don't think thats quite correct, infact i think that in EB's period is only a few years away from the first days that the Gauls stepped on land of Galatia, and by this time I think they were allied with the Bithynians and also had some conflicts with the Seleukids.

So I don't think they should be dismissed now as of now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hekk

I don't think thats quite correct, infact i think that in EB's period is only a few years away from the first days that the Gauls stepped on land of Galatia, and by this time I think they were allied with the Bithynians and also had some conflicts with the Seleukids.

So I don't think they should be dismissed now as of now.

---

You are absolutely correct. The Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Volcae Tectosages led by Leonorius and Loutorius land in Anatolia in 278BC. Imported by Nicomedes I of Bithynia fallowing their successful siege of Byzantion and the hellespont in general (many of these land gains may have been reversed by Antigonas Gonatas.) Though Leonorius and Loutorius fall from the pages of history during this time the Celts pillage Anatolia prompting Antiochus I "The Savior" to engage them in battle. Where the Galatai are defeated. Though I'm not familiar with the peace terms it's clear that they where made before 274 as Antiochus' attentions immediately shifted to Ptolemy. Conversely its possible that the radical successes of Ptolemy negated the affects of Galatia’s peace terms with the Seleucids.

Whatever the case is Galatia is firmly established as a political entity as of 272 BC. With clear world objectives in and out of Asia. The remaining questions are
1 Byzantion may very possibly still be a tribute paying state of Leonorius and Loutorius’ Galatians. Whether this means that they are a type 3 government or just flat out paid a large sum of cash I can not verify.
2. What is the exact manner of the relationship between the Volcae Tectosages, dominant shareholders of the Galatian tetrarchy and their brethren in Tolosa.
3. How close politically are the Galatians to Comontorios of Tylis and Bathanatos of the Scordisci.

EDIT::
If anyone has answers to the questions I’ve posed or otherwise objects id like to know. There seem to be a few unfortunate blank spaces, particularly regarding the fates of Leonorius and Loutorius.

Has anyone suggested the Bastarnae? The Celtic-German-Thracian mix would make for an interesting unit roster plus it would help with balancing out the Sweboz expansion in the area. If people are looking for a faction to help fill the gap in Eastern Europe the Bastarnae would probably make a suitable choice.

An far eastern Germanic faction would be great, though I hope we will see more factions in Germania because just 1 faction there doesn't do the area justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

An far eastern Germanic faction would be great, though I hope we will see more factions in Germania because just 1 faction there doesn't do the area justice.

---

Not only does it not do it justice but it maked the Gallic campaigns almost unplayable (I may just be a bad player:yes:) a faction is definatly needed to balance out the Northern Europe play of power. Of course the danger is that by including another German faction the Sweboz campaign simply mirrors the Aedui/Averni campaign. Really looking forward to the possibility of there being another "barbarian" faction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Not only does it not do it justice but it maked the Gallic campaigns almost unplayable (I may just be a bad player:yes:) a faction is definatly needed to balance out the Northern Europe play of power. Of course the danger is that by including another German faction the Sweboz campaign simply mirrors the Aedui/Averni campaign. Really looking forward to the possibility of there being another "barbarian" faction!

---

Well I think its an given that the Belgae or an part of the Belgae will be in. And most likely there will be some at least some other like Celt-Iberians, Boii and another Germanic faction.

I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)

---

who are dos?
:P:dizzy2:

Mongols?


Really :D

tehyre gonna be in EB2 XD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)

---

Do you mean the early Huns?

I suspect this is a joke (a good one by the way:laugh4:) ..... or a sarcastic hint on the Sakas/Sauros or another steppe faction?:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)

---

Nah it's definitely the Yayoi.

Cyrenaica under Magas of Cyrene. Just read the dudes wiki page "(r. 276 - 250 BCE)". I don't care if that seems like the most idiotic reasoning, but i just feel that the EB team would not pass up the chance for such a unique faction.

EDIT: If it turns out I am right, I want everyone in the revealing thread to put in a little praise for me.

EDIT 2: Also, Syracuse because people are guessing that one as a sure thing and I want for this post to be at least half right when it is all said and done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)

---

If the Yuezhi aren't in it the Xiongu definatly won't be, chronologically and topographically its unrealistic. Plus there is the problem of culture, the Xiongu were an Altaic people not Indo-European, you would need a whole new culture slot not to mention new voice mods (for a language which I don't think has any modern descendants).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I think the Xiognu are going to be in! :)

---

And Napoleon with the Grand Armée! I just can't wait to fight the Macedon Phalanx with firearms!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

If the Yuezhi aren't in it the Xiongu definatly won't be, chronologically and topographically its unrealistic. Plus there is the problem of culture, the Xiongu were an Altaic people not Indo-European, you would need a whole new culture slot not to mention new voice mods (for a language which I don't think has any modern descendants).

---

Either thats the driest sarcasm I've ever heard or you failed to spot the joke of a EB team member suggesting a completely inapropriate faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

If the Yuezhi aren't in it the Xiongu definatly won't be, chronologically and topographically its unrealistic. Plus there is the problem of culture, the Xiongu were an Altaic people not Indo-European, you would need a whole new culture slot not to mention new voice mods (for a language which I don't think has any modern descendants).

---

Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Either thats the driest sarcasm I've ever heard or you failed to spot the joke of a EB team member suggesting a completely inapropriate faction.

---

:oops:You must forgive me, I have been writing about Scythian and Sarmatian culture for the past fortnight and so my mind is a bit frazzled :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Well I think its an given that the Belgae or an part of the Belgae will be in. And most likely there will be some at least some other like Celt-Iberians, Boii and another Germanic faction.

---

Boii seem like strong contenders. My only other worry is putting even more factions around the AS. AS games are hard enough as it is so a powerful Poleis like Pergamum worries me, although you never know it could be a nice buffer to Makedonia.

Full support for a Goidelic or another British faction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!

---

:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Full support for a Goidelic or another British faction!

---

Will you do the research? :book:

:clown:

I raise you the Tokugawa Shogunate, Moros!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Will you do the research? :book:

:clown:

---

May as well, gonna end up writing about Iron Age Britain and Ireland at some point on my course.

Obviously a Goidelic faction would be extremely difficult to create both from an archaeological perspective (first person to find the Irish Iron Age gets a medal!) and historical perspective but surely a British tribe like the Brigantes would be a feasible thought (just a thought, Im not one of these people who supports a British faction in the same way people have been supporting a Jewish faction), I just wish the Picts had emerged a few hundred years earlier than they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I raise you the Tokugawa Shogunate, Moros!

---

:focus:

Doupt there will be an Irish Faction. It would be based on to many assumptions. The four units in EB1 (with a few changes, primarily to the Nobles, IMO) amply represents Irelands inhabitants.

I would prefer the Brigantes to replace the Casse, and then add in a Belgic faction with one of its objectives being to take over Southern England. I believe that a Belgic faction has been suggested before though, but was turned down/argued against by one of the team members (not enough info at start period).

Someone ought to gather the various team quotes together and start another Lost Art of keeping a secret thread....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliferno

Doupt there will be an Irish Faction. It would be based on to many assumptions. The four units in EB1 (with a few changes, primarily to the Nobles, IMO) amply represents Irelands inhabitants.

---

Thats true, same would apply for Caledonia as well. I guess one problem with a Belgic faction (apart from a lack of info about the Belgic tribes in 272BC) is that they would probably start the game as Aedui allies (assuming the political system in 58BC had changed little since 272) which could make Averni games much more difficult or alternatively it could work very well by causing trouble for the Sweboz.

Any thoughts on the Veneti (a long shot i know)? Unique naval vessels could make for an interesting campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Any thoughts on the Veneti (a long shot i know)? Unique naval vessels could make for an interesting campaign.

---

Well, in EB I the Veneti have only two unique units (like the Chatti). Plus Gaul is pretty crowded already. The idea is interesting, no doubt, but IMO the faction slot should rather be spent on the Boii.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

I guess one problem with a Belgic faction (apart from a lack of info about the Belgic tribes in 272BC) is that they would probably start the game as Aedui allies (assuming the political system in 58BC had changed little since 272)

---

Actually it was the exact opposite. Belgae were in a furious fight with other gallic tribes around the start date of our mod, pushing their way into central Gaul, coming from Germany. Eventually, they were stopped by the Aeduii, and settled into modern day Belgica.

Some time ago a large battle site was discovered in northern France or southern Belgica, with bones and armour pertaining our timeframe, and one perhaps may assume that it was one of the battles of this conflict.

My memory is a bit foggy though, and I might be horribly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Any thoughts on the Veneti (a long shot i know)? Unique naval vessels could make for an interesting campaign.

---

The Veneti aren't that bad a suggestion. Although they appear to have been a minor faction in gaulish politics (from my brief skimming of the subject) they have the advantage of being expansionist in the British Isles, with Caesar saying they sent for help when he attacked them. Of course we don't know the exact nature of what these colonies were (i.e land conquered from others, or trade outposts that brought enough wealth to the locals they had an interest in sending help to the Veneti, or some other possibility, such as Caesar made it up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Praetor-

Actually it was the exact opposite. Belgae were in a furious fight with other gallic tribes around the start date of our mod, pushing their way into central Gaul, coming from Germany. Eventually, they were stopped by the Aeduii, and settled into modern day Belgica.

Some time ago a large battle site was discovered in northern France or southern Belgica, with bones and armour pertaining our timeframe, and one perhaps may assume that it was one of the battles of this conflict.

My memory is a bit foggy though, and I might be horribly wrong.

---

Either the Belgae...
Or The Boii...


uhhhh I can see me fighting the Sauromatae and Germans at the same time as Boii's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Well, in EB I the Veneti have only two unique units (like the Chatti). Plus Gaul is pretty crowded already. The idea is interesting, no doubt, but IMO the faction slot should rather be spent on the Boii.

---

Oh no I agree I would much rather see the Boii than any other Gallic tribe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Praetor-

Actually it was the exact opposite. Belgae were in a furious fight with other gallic tribes around the start date of our mod, pushing their way into central Gaul, coming from Germany. Eventually, they were stopped by the Aeduii, and settled into modern day Belgica.

Some time ago a large battle site was discovered in northern France or southern Belgica, with bones and armour pertaining our timeframe, and one perhaps may assume that it was one of the battles of this conflict.

My memory is a bit foggy though, and I might be horribly wrong.

---

You mean the site at Ribemont-sur-Ancre?
Very big site that dates to right around the EB start date.

A nifty picture of the shrine that was build after the battle
https://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g...5/Image1-7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!

---

Is that actually true? I really don't get the point of why culture slots are a limitation. Sure the UI is changed, and the city models look different and there are other things tied to culture, but I really don't get why its such a thing that if a faction was needed, you had all the info for them but they were of a totally different culture to the current ones that it would be a problem to just lump them in with something already there. Do people care THAT much about cosmetics that they would erase a historically significant faction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

Is that actually true? I really don't get the point of why culture slots are a limitation. Sure the UI is changed, and the city models look different and there are other things tied to culture, but I really don't get why its such a thing that if a faction was needed, you had all the info for them but they were of a totally different culture to the current ones that it would be a problem to just lump them in with something already there. Do people care THAT much about cosmetics that they would erase a historically significant faction?

---

Well, yes it is kinda a big deal. Family member portraits - do you want a Roman face in your Gallic family tree? Strat map models, cities, UI- they are all part of de-homogenizing the original product. And there are lots of historically significant factions, about which there is plenty of material, that already fit into the culture slots that we have- so why should we go looking outside the parameters? Hell, we could probably do 9 or 10 Celtic factions alone.

Maybe we are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

Well, yes it is kinda a big deal. Family member portraits - do you want a Roman face in your Gallic family tree? Strat map models, cities, UI- they are all part of de-homogenizing the original product. And there are lots of historically significant factions, about which there is plenty of material, that already fit into the culture slots that we have- so why should we go looking outside the parameters? Hell, we could probably do 9 or 10 Celtic factions alone.

Maybe we are...

---

You already said it!
There is at least one celtic faction !!!


:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddy_purpus

You already said it!
There is at least one celtic faction !!!


:balloon2:

---

Well I wouldn't be surprised by that, the Celtic tribes spanned across most of Europe really. I don't see how they couldn't have atleast one more Celtic faction.

I really can't wait til they reveal one though (if they do, that is). :p

originally i'd vote for a numidian, pergamon and britain based factions but they are already in.
so from a game-experience pov my prefferances for the other factions are rather similar to the great majority of posters from 2007 onwards (i actually read the first 9 pages before i noticed how old this discussion was :oops:)
1. boii - as said before their presence in central europe and north italy can serve a great deal in slowing german and roman expansion patterns, especially in the gaul theater.

2.a second iberian or celto-iberian faction to duplicate with more accuracy (or at least provide role playing) the political situation there. i.e. if some tribes can be used by either side of the roman-cathaginian conflict as allies, this would not automaticly include all of the iberian peninsula. and 2 factions might even present a more durable buffer against romano-cathage expansion north then 1.

3.kyrenae faction as buffer betwean ptolemaic kingdom and cathage

4.maybe devide the greek city states into 2 factions, but i fear this would not improve their survivability :no:

5. rebel seleukids, event triggered preferably, to accelerate their demise if some theritories are lost or some faction members get killed in battle

6. rebel romans, similary triggered by events, but more connected with theritory expansion, marian reforms and character traits

i know yuezhi are not included, but i'd also prefer if at least some nasty eleutheroi nomadic invasion pops in the far eastern edges of the map to spice things up for the bactrians and possibly seleukids if they still have a hold there. in my current game with macedon, while hunting seleukids past persepolis i was surprised to see the bactrians thriving in the north indias. and this is a second time they do this out of 2 campaigns i've played this far east. they need to be challenged somehow, especially if human controlled. and since indian faction is not possible, at least a time triggered mongol-like invasion of neautrals would do the trick. scripted to be quite agresive within their historical activity zones :book:

The team have stated that there will be no rebel factions as its a waste of a faction slot(you can't play them) and it would mean an unfair focus on a few factions (all factions would have experienced rebellions ot just the seleukids or romans).

Also there already is a scripted eleutheroi invasion in EB1 to represent the Yuezhi, not that having Baktria in north india is a problem, its what they did historically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The team have stated that there will be no rebel factions as its a waste of a faction slot(you can't play them) and it would mean an unfair focus on a few factions (all factions would have experienced rebellions ot just the seleukids or romans).

Also there already is a scripted eleutheroi invasion in EB1 to represent the Yuezhi, not that having Baktria in north india is a problem, its what they did historically

---

i know that rebels would be a waste of faction slots, it;s just that the roman civil wars in the 1century bc made a big impact on the overall geo-political balance. but if they are out, they are out. i can't think of a better way to use those 2 slots though. a second britain based faction and belgae? but adding those would really cramp the gaulic sphere of influence, just like adding thrace and ilyria would do to the balcans. are there any stepe candidates (seing how bosphorans are in already)?

-edit-

the problem is not bactrians taking over india, it's them still thriving and expanding unoposed 150+ years after the campaign starting point in 2 out of 2 cases i played in the east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarem

i know that rebels would be a waste of faction slots, it;s just that the roman civil wars in the 1century bc made a big impact on the overall geo-political balance.

---

What geo-political balance? There was only one dominant power around the Mediterranean before the civil wars, and that was Rome. After the civil wars there was still only one such power, and it was still Rome. The civil wars didn't even slow Rome's expansion, unlike for example the endless dynastic conflicts within the Seleucid and Ptolemean empires.

i think it did had effects, although at moments those effects seamed erratic. sulla for example turned from his campaign against pontus, and marched on rome. the "punitive" action against parthia was posponed because of the conflict with the pro-republicans. not to mention that the future of egypt (a client kingdom at the time) was directly influenced by the civil war (it can be argued that after's cesar's campaign, egypt was no longer a client state, but rather allied in terms of EB). most of the effects from the civil wars, seamed to concentrate on the eastern borders. it was not untill augustus' times that the east was shaped roughly as it will be for the next 200 years or more (minus the ocasional excursions into mesopotamia).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarem

originally i'd vote for a numidian, pergamon and britain based factions but they are already in.
so from a game-experience pov my prefferances for the other factions are rather similar to the great majority of posters from 2007 onwards (i actually read the first 9 pages before i noticed how old this discussion was :oops:)
1. boii - as said before their presence in central europe and north italy can serve a great deal in slowing german and roman expansion patterns, especially in the gaul theater.

2.a second iberian or celto-iberian faction to duplicate with more accuracy (or at least provide role playing) the political situation there. i.e. if some tribes can be used by either side of the roman-cathaginian conflict as allies, this would not automaticly include all of the iberian peninsula. and 2 factions might even present a more durable buffer against romano-cathage expansion north then 1.

---

boii and arevaci will probably be in indeed

as for the 3rd one i believe that the belgae will finally show up and probably with a fort in the british isles so we can remove the casse with a more historically accurate faction

that would account for pergamon, bosphorus, numidia, boii, belgae and arevaci.
what are other probable candidates then? 3 or 4 slots left if 10 more are available

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarem

i think it did had effects, although at moments those effects seamed erratic.

---

Certainly the civil wars had their effect, but if anything they made Rome stronger as it forced her to deal with lingering rebellions and bad provincial government. Despite the civil war, the rebellions in Iberia and Asia were stamped out in short order. This period also saw the most spectacular expansion of the Roman empire since the conquest of Hellas.

BTW, by the time Augustus was finished with the Ptolemeans, Egypt had been turned into his private estate. It wasn't even notionally independent any more.

no doubt that Rome got out of the civil wars stronger then ever. even during the intermediate periods expansion was evident, not in the least thanks to the unusual concentration of brilliant statesmen the period saw. and the golden age that followed after Augustus won, no doubt shows the republic was well overdue for rehauling. however the wars themselves did temporary halt the active campaigns. i am not proposing that the republic was capable of any expansion in the present state that it was, still for any effective gameplay reasons, having to lead your armies back into the homelands to protect your interests , would de facto simulate some of the historical manoeuvring :book:

-edit-

even more so if you get to chose which side you get to represent, with notable character and faction consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarem

i am not proposing that the republic was capable of any expansion in the present state that it was, still for any effective gameplay reasons, having to lead your armies back into the homelands to protect your interests , would de facto simulate some of the historical manoeuvring :book:

---

So did the civil wars of other nations, and they had far more dramatic consequences. I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion. Then there is the loyalty-rate that determines the likelyhood of rebellion: it's too crude a parameter to simulate complex politicking. It represents loyalty to the faction leader rather than factions within a nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

So did the civil wars of other nations, and they had far more dramatic consequences. I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion. Then there is the loyalty-rate that determines the likelyhood of rebellion: it's too crude a parameter to simulate complex politicking. It represents loyalty to the faction leader rather than factions within a nation.

---

that explains a lot.
i did had in mind rebellion for the 3 major factions that heavily influenced history with their own civil wars (Rome, Seleukids and Ptolemaids), but if the loyalty is the only parameter available it might lead to counter productive effects, especially for the roman faction. and if you can't pick a side you might end up playing an unwanted side in it (usually loyalist), that would in this case mean playing as the senate against your most powerful generals. i can't vouch for others, but when i play TW, i identify myself mostly with the field generals then the home administrators, and in EB1 my preference often goes with the hired "allied" generals, as they often have more desirable traits and are faster to improve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion.

---

Actually, someone managed to write a script for RTW to change factions mid-game.

Just look at this thread (6th post).

I don't know if this can be used for M2:TW though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

boii and arevaci will probably be in indeed

as for the 3rd one i believe that the belgae will finally show up and probably with a fort in the british isles so we can remove the casse with a more historically accurate faction

---

Hmmm. Are you saying that having the Belgae in Britain in 272 BCE is more accurate than the current Casse faction in EB1? That is an interesting position. Can you prove it?

Here's a little paraphrase from material in Cunliffe, Birchall, Mattingly et al.

In 1890, the discovery of a "Belgic" cemetary at Aylesford was linked to the Marnian peoples of the continent by the site's publisher, A.J.Evans. Evans linked the site with Caesar's comments that the coastal areas of Britain were settled by Belgic invaders from northern Gaul. The excavation of graves around Welwyn, Hertforshire by Smith in 1912 were thought to confirm these ideas. Then J.P.Bushe-Fox's excavations of the Swarling graves in 1925 established these "invaders" to after 75 BCE according to the dating of the associated grave goods.

Since the authoritative account of the history of the British and continental Belgic tribes by Hawkes and Dunning in 1930 it has been accepted that the introduction of Belgic culture into Britain is represented archaeologically exclusively by the series of Late La Tene Aylesford-Swarling type cremation burials in the south-east. Its continental origins were traced to northern Gaul, the area occupied by the historical Belgae, where a similar series of cremation burials of Late La Tene date is known. This continental series, thought to mark a change from what seemed to be the universal practice of inhumation as mode of burial to cremation, was interpreted as representative of a fusion of inhuming Galli with cremating Germani from across the Rhine. This fusion, leading to the
formation of the Belgae, who, as Caesar records, boasted of their 'Germanic' origin, was thought to have taken place in the latter half of the second century BCE. The date for the first Belgic invaders of Britain was put at about 75 BCE. However, at the 1964 Conference on the Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, the initial settlement of the Belgae in Britain was up-dated. This resulted from Allen's reappraisal of the origins of coinage in Britain. Of the waves of imported coinages, taken to reflect the pattern of Belgic migration to Britain, the two earliest were attributed to the second century BCE., while the third and main wave, Gallo-Belgic C, was dated to about 100 BCE. Some sort of Belgic activity is represented in the Lower Thames area by the coins of the second century- and perhaps also the few brooches and swords - but Belgic settlement, it was felt, should date at least from the time of the third coin wave, about I00 BCE.

The Aylesford-Swarling culture in Britain may be defined as an archaeological culture characterized by cremation-burials in flat graves and accompanied by distinctive pottery types (wheel-made [not hand-made]). Examination of all the relevant material, including the reassembly of all possible grave-groups, suggests, particularly for Kent, the primary landfall, it is agreed, of the first Belgic invaders, the formation of 'homogeneous' groups of graves, based on the similarity of over-all contents. These form a simple relative chronological series, with 'early', 'middle', and 'late' periods.

The middle period, which was in full swing when Julius Caesar invaded, is thought to have lasted from about 50 BCE to about 10 BCE (there is a lot of very detailed archaeological analysis of British and Continental pottery and bronze vessels that go into these dates). The late period is usually taken to have ended with the Roman invasion of 43 AD, although of course many of the material aspects of the culture continued.

Dating the early period is a little more difficult, and speaks directly to what kind of faction the British Isles should have in EB2.

The paucity of the material in the early group inevitably raises the question whether it may reasonably be claimed that the group, while it may be pre-Caesarian, extends as far back in time as the dating attributed at least to the main coin wave at about I00 BCE. This is indeed a pertinent question for, though coins may relate to the dominant and wealthier elements of society which are unlikely to be documented by other archaeological material such as coarse pottery, yet burial-material ought to relate to the whole of the society, and the 'early' group represents the earliest typological stage in the Aylesford-Swarling sequence. It must therefore be doubted whether, on present evidence, there are grounds for up-dating the Aylesford-Swarling culture. On the other hand, the earlier dating for Belgic settlement in Britain proposed by the coin evidence gains some support from a reconsideration of the continental material. For it can now be shown that the continental Belgic tribes are of earlier origin than has hitherto been supposed. Analysis of the parallel Late La Thne series of Aylesford-Swarling type burials on the Continent reveals that its characteristic features of cremation-burial and distinctive pottery types have origins in Middle, and even Early, La Tene. Hence the conclusion that the southern Belgic tribes were developing during the third century BCE at latest. This is, moreover, consistent with the results of Marien's work on the La Tene material of the present-day Low Countries; here, owing to the demonstrable continuity of culture in the regional groups throughout La Tene, the Belgic tribes inhabiting these northern regions in historical times can be traced back to origins in the fifth century. The 'Germanic' origin of the Belgae, when expressed in archaeological terms, is seen to be Urnfield Culture. It would seem that, if the higher dating of the coins is accepted and given the much earlier formation of the continental Belgic tribes, the Aylesford-Swarling sequence, which is more closely related to the culture of the southern Belgae and seems predominantly post-Caesarian in date, represents a later -albeit the most dominant- phase of Belgic settlement and culture in Britain. Aylesford-Swarling is now seen to extend only part way along the widened, and still widening, horizons of Belgic history.


So, Belgic settlement of Britain is pretty clearly not in existence in 272 BCE - although there may well have been contact of some kind prior to the Aylesford-Swarling culture, which, also clearly, really only came into existence between Caesar's invasion and Cladius's 100 years or so later. According to Cunliffe (Iron age Communities in Britain), "Welwyn type cremations represent a tradition of aristocratic burial deeply rooted in the formative period of the Aylesford-Swarling culture north of the Thames." It is now thought that this culture developed because of the proximity of Roman trading systems, rather than a wholesale movement of continental peoples. The culture does not appear to have a secure pre-Caesarian phase. So we see that the "Belgic Invasion" of Britain cannot be decoupled from the expanding Roman hegemony - another important point for EB, where Roman hegemony is not a foregone conclusion. It is possible to assert that absent Roman expansion, the Belgic movement into Britain might not have happened at all, or in a different fashion and to a different chronology.

Although there probably was in fact some migration of 'Belgic' peoples from Gaul to Britain in the mid-1st century BC [after Caesar], likely fleeing Roman subjugation [or that of Gallic tribes allied with Rome], the most pervasive view today seems to be that the ‘Aylesford-Swarling culture’ was not the result of a large scale population movement, or invasion, but a manifestation of increasing trade and social contacts between south-eastern British tribes and their increasingly more Romanized neighbours across the Channel. Again, a Belgae faction in Britain in 272 BCE for EB2 hardly seems to be particularly historically accurate.

But perhaps you know something I don't?

Mmm found out that the Batavians only came to their rhine area in about 50B.C., so definately no Batavian unit. At the time they were still a part of the Chatii.

Chatti would make for a nice brutal Germanic faction though :shifty: ...

Yeah, it's hard to realize sometimes just how much knock-on effect the growth of Roman power had: the British tribes a year before the Romans invaded were not in an original, pure state of grace. They had already been very significantly changed by their increasing incorporation into the Mediterranean economic sphere- in an extreme sense, a tribe like the Catuvellauni (of whom there is no record until after Caesar) was created by the presence of Roman power, even though it was across the Channel. The same principle applies to the Germanic tribes and indeed anyone on the periphery: we cannot say that any peoples/tribes/states were independent of and unaffected by the Roman hegemony, even those that were never officially part of it. That makes rolling the clock back very hard indeed, except in the case of 'factions' that kept records of their own- like the Greeks.

i guess you´re right but there seems to be some evidence of trade beteween the island and the continent during the time of the construction of stonehenge since britain was extremly productive in terms of cereals and tin

ofc trade doesn´t count for setling i just hope there are some sort of belgae faction into the mix so we can have 3 celtic type of factions (in the belgae term probably a keltoi-germanico faction like the nervii )

as for the rest of the factions i´m still hoping for a proper 1st punic war with syracuse in the mix and ofc a far fetched alliance/conection with massilia (yeap i know it won´t happen but one can dream :laugh4: ) and another faction of skytians (around olbia) maybe to buff beteween the cimmerians and the getai or germanic tribes

Hello

I check these forums now and again and I was wondering can someone tell me (so I don't have to read all the 21 pages) is it just Pergamon and the Bosporan Kingdom who have been confirmed as new factions so far?

Thanks

The Kingdom of Massylia as well.

illyria should be a faction it would be very fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gentt5

illyria should be a faction it would be very fun

---

OMG, White Hand has infiltrated the .org!

alert alert
someone call the army!
preferably the albanian one

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

:inquisitive:

---

White Hand was a troll, maybe an albanian nationalist. I don't know if gentt5 is White Hand.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=414089

Return on the subject.
About the Scythians, they were in Kallatis's region during the first half of the third century bc?
Because of these coins:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greec...allatis/i.html
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greec...hmov_203.2.jpg
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greec...ushmov_203.jpg

Oh my God, it is the White Hand. It is the hand of the infamous white troll, who crawls from his lair deep in the Albanian woodlands with the remnants of Volemort's soul once a day to terrorize the community of the TWCenter with his horrifying historical fallacies and two word sentances, all which start or end with "Illyria". Now he has set his bloodshot, cruel eyes on a new new community, a new target: The Org. And he has begun his reign of terror with an excruciating two year necromancing of a thread that has one identical to it still on the first page.

I think we should give gentt5 a break, he's a new member so we don't know if he is a troll or not yet, sure he necroed a thread and hasn't read much of the forums yet but people who are new to using forums often make these kinds of mistakes. We should help new members understand the polite way of using a forum, not accuse them of being trolls from another forum and scare them off.

Welcome to the .org gentt5 :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuchip

I think we should give gentt5 a break, he's a new member so we don't know if he is a troll or not yet, sure he necroed a thread and hasn't read much of the forums yet but people who are new to using forums often make these kinds of mistakes. We should help new members understand the polite way of using a forum, not accuse them of being trolls from another forum and scare them off.

Welcome to the .org gentt5 :bow:

---

:yes:

what did i do wrong?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gentt5

what did i do wrong?...

---

Nuttin... I just hate necrophiles :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gentt5

what did i do wrong?...

---

Don't worry, people just confused you with a guy over on the TWC who used to constantly demand there be a Illyrain faction, no matter how many times we told him there wouldn't be.

Welcome to the .org!

Yes, Welcome gentt5.
About your proposal, it's not a bad idea, but there is a lack of information about the Illyrians in the EBTeam. It's not easy to create a faction, the EBTeam has a high requirement about the historical accurancy. The only solution would be to have someone knowledgeable on the subject with an objective point of view. The Illyrians aren't alone in this case, the EBTeam searchs someone for the Iberic Peninsula. It's not only a problem of source but a problem of time available to work on the subject too. I think the team had even sought help from an expert for the Carthaginian and Numidian factions.

Well, I hope not to have said some mistakes. (I'm not a member of the Team).

There is no lack of knowledge concering Illyria, the team just feels that none of the Illyrian tribes of the period are deserving of a faction slot.

First of all, hello.

I hope I am not trolling because I sense Illyria is a touchy subject. Anyway, I kind of feared that the reason for Illyria's non-inclusion would be the lack of many info. Granted, I am a first year history student, but I am not very into the whole Illyria theme so excuse any mistakes I may make. What I do remember is that the definition of the Illyrian territory prior to what the province was is still very cloudy. I remember one example where it was taken for granted before that all territories on the Dalmatian coast, including the Liburnians and the Delmatae, were Illyrians, but further studies indicated that Illyria (at the coast at least) really starts south of the Delmatae. If any tribe could fit as a possible faction it would probably be the Ardiaei (and possibly Dardani), since they held an importance as an opponent to both Rome in their Illyrian wars and the Macedonians.
Being from Croatia the subject is quite sought after so the library has a section fairly filled with themes about it. Unfortunately, since most of the books are either from Croatian authors or people from other former-Yugoslav states I am quite doubtful that many of those books have international publications. The one big foreign book I remember reading was "Les Illyriens de Bardylis a Genthios" from Cabanes, but I am quite sure your massive team of historians digested that book all over.

Well, I hope you do your best with the info at your disposal. I am actually way more interested in hearing improvements for my beloved Egypt :)

Although they are not thechnically Illyrian (thus not being affected by the fact that there will be no Illyrian faction), the Skordiskoi lived in or next to (depending on your definition of what composed Illyria) Illyria, and they would make an excellent faction.

As i said before, none of the Illyrian tribes are really suitable for a faction, even the most powerful tribe during EB's timeframe, the Ardiaei, barely held a single province on the EB map at their height .
The closest thing we could feasibly have to a Illyrian faction is either the Scordisci or the Dardani, both of who were influenced by them to varying degrees, of these the Scordisci are the more likely as info on the Dardani is very scarce.

Can someone re-post a map with the already revealed factions from EB2 and the old factions of EB1..
Thanks

This is the closest you're going to get for now: click

Thanks Horatius :)