Which faction do you want to ad to EB if there was no faction limit?

It's is not possible yet to add factions to RTW but if the RTW expansion removes the faction limit or a smart hacker finds a solution to add more factions
which one would you add?

I would add this factons:

The Avernii alliance = The gallic "arch" enemies of the Aedui
The Bosporus kingdom = Hellenic kingdom in south Ukraine
The Norii (Noricum) = Alpine celtic tribe (Noricum)
Mauryan india = Indian culture
Epirus = Hellenic kingdom in the balkans (north greece, albania)
Illyria = Partly Hellenised Indo-european tribes in what that where located the western balkans
The Saka= Central Asian steppe people of iranian descent
And of course Bartix ~;) ............

i havent heard of some of those...what was the bosporus kingdom?

It is a Hellenistic state state at the shores of the black sea in what we now call Ukraine.
It a bit like Bactria a interessting mix of cultures....
It greek but with a lot of sarmatian influence and other steppe cultures and even a bit influenced by the celts..

You can read more at this wikipedia link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerian_Bosporus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elthore

i havent heard of some of those...what was the bosporus kingdom?

---

i thought later they became a roman client kingdom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

i thought later they became a roman client kingdom

---

Yep, also Noricum whas also roman client state

Nubia... those guys south of Egypt, give the egyptians a run for their money (and also make Egypt a harder faction to play as you'd be fighting a 3 front war).

I wouldn't mind them putting all factions/tribes/etc that did exist in 272BC ~;)

Tylis would be a good addition, even though it had a short run.

I would vote for the Maurya as they add some pretty interesting units!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I wouldn't mind them putting all factions/tribes/etc that did exist in 272BC ~;)

---

That will take a long time ........ ~;)
We will have to wait for EB to finish not months but years.......
But it is realistic to ad all factions in to the mod ~D

Bartix!! Everyone loves bartix!!

That thread still makes me laugh...

The Arvernii would be interesting, a civil war in Gaul... :duel:

The factions that I would like in EB if we didn't have _any_ limits:
Goidils, Caledonians, Belgae, all German tribes as one-province factions, Lugiae, West Balts, East Balts, Proto-Sami, Neuri, Scythians, Noricum, Helvetii, Lusitanians, Celtiberians, Southern Iberians, Scythia Minor, all greek colonies on the Pontus coast as one-province factions, Tylis...
and that's just for Europe :)

I would like to see an Indian faction

top of my list would be

arverni
kushites
illyrians
nabateans
bithynia
cappadocia
pergamum (the attalids)
yuezhi
mauryans
numidia
belage maybe?
galatians maybe?

Not surprising, Cantabrii-Astures... ~:)

A very humble faction, but tough tho...

I'd like to have all. ~:rolleyes:

Epriuss should be nice. if the begin/time is put back a bit. Pyrrhus sounds fascinating. havent got round to reading about him.

If you want to be really obsessive, could go full on with a unit list. Like, Caledonians (who, I'd like to divide Caledonia in 2 in that case, and give them the northern most part):

Divided into two groups, the southern, more Briton-affected, and northern wild hillmen; most names in English just for the joy of it
1. Tribal levies
2. Southern skirmishers
3. Northern skirmishers
4. Horsemen
5. Orcadian spearmen
6. Northern spearmen
7. Southern spearmen
8. Southern shortswordsmen
9. Northern axemen
10. Mahrauron (southern champions with swords)
11. Ymryh (southern chariots)
12. Northern hill horsemen
13. Two-handed axemen in the north (eh, there were a few big axes there, probably just wood axes)
14. Northern shortswordsmen (which would be extremely expensive, swords were very rare in the north)
15. Slingers
16. Archers
17. Selgovae archers (camoflauged themselves)

I would prefer to bring some life in the southern part of the map:

Nabataens
Southern arabian states like saba
Kush
Mauretania

Nabataens or Sabaens would be close to the top of my list to see, just because I think they'd look cool. I'm sure we'll have a few regionals for them at least.

The Antigonid Empire (another diodachi) and to add more realism to the "barbarian" factions at least the Senone (yup, the very same who single-handedly sacked Rome) as another Gallic tribe, and the Picts as another British tribe. The Cimbri-Teutoni tribes as another Germanic faction.

The Picts didn't exist yet, and the Senone were under the control of the Aedui, so wouldn't be a seperate faction. Picts came about as a response to Roman expansion in Britain; fleeing Britons allied with Caledonian tribes in the north and formed a confederacy. That's way out of our period. Also, as an aside, Senones did not single-handedly sack Rome, they had other allies in Cisalpine Gaul who came with them. Senones were merely the leaders of the sack, under their then current king Brennos.

maybe some factions in Italy. Samnites etc. and divide greece up completly

Yes I exaggerated the Senone sack, but they composed much of the army and they were not under the rule of a central Gallic authority (while coalitions sprang up there of course never was a unified Gallic kingdom). The Romans refer to the Caledoneans in the era we're talking about rather than calling them Picts, but in the absence of evidence indicating a migration I would say the Picts were descendants of the Caledoneans, and "Pict" is a suitable generic term. Other tribes that could be included to simulate the diversity of politics and culture could include the Belgae and Marcomannes.

P.S. nice to know people are particularly picky about their history around here ~:)

Pict is a wholely Roman term, and totally inappropriate for the period. They'd simply be Caledonians, or Caledrynon. They were also culturally different, because Goidilic and Briton culture was heavily affecting them. The old Caledonians effectively ceased to exist, so calling them Caledonians is more accurate than calling them by a cultural outgrowth. It'd be like calling iron age Britons in Wales the Welsh. The Welsh culture is largely an outgrowth of Cymrian Celtic culture, but not identical, and there was no migration involved, simply external cultures affecting them. Gaul, also, was once a united kingdom, under the Biturges, which is how the region of Gaul came to originally be recognized. The tribes who had been under the Biturges control formerly, or descended from those tribes, were the Gallic tribes. In our period, there are two kingdoms in Gaul, the Aedui, the descendants of the Birturges, in terms of ruling (and now control the Biturges), and their opposition were the Arverni, who were essentially rebels who gathered up some of the tribes who expressed a lack of confidence in the wake of Germanic and Belgic incursions, in the Aedui confederation's authority and ability to defend them. These two groups are more than coalitions. The tribes don't have total autonomy, and don't necessarily have the right to break away from the central authority without violent reprisal. They're more akin to a state, like in the United States; they hold some authority over themselves, with local laws and the ability to form local militia-type armies, but they answer to a higher governing authority. The Arverni-Aedui conflict is the equivalent, in this example, is the equivalent of the American civil war. Some states (tribes) felt they were not being protected enough, or were being mistreated by the government, so they sided with a rebellion, and formed their own government. Of course, due to faction limitations, only one side, the Aedui, will probably be seen. It's a pity too, because the Roman conquest of Gaul largely hinged on the fact that the two sides were too busy fighting one another to face the Romans. A united Gaul could've provided quite a solid fight, and in vanilla, it was always too easy to unite Gaul. However, our rebels should provide a decent enemy, so that hopefully won't be a problem.

Belgae!
Helvetii!
Some kind of Indian Faction.
Scythes
Numidia (So Carthage wouldn't be to lonely)
...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodidley

The Cimbri-Teutoni tribes as another Germanic faction.

---

It is not clear that the Cimbri-Teutoni where Germanic.
They could be Celts or a mixture of both..
A fact is that some Celtic tribes did joined the Cimbri-Teutoni like the Helvetii...

1. nabatean kingdom
2. gaetulians
3. mauritanians
4. cliant kingdom of judaea
5. belgae
6. kingdom of numidia
7. cantabrians
8. epirus
9. kingdom of ilyria
10. iaziges
11. suabi
12. marcomani

Mauryans
Arvernii
Nabataens
Kingdom of Kush
Axum
Numidia
Illyria
Scythians
Epirus
Bosporus Kingdom
Separate Greek City states
Seubi
Galatians

well what i would really want is to have every province belong to the faction that it belonged to in 272 BCE, meaning like hundreds of different factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTank

It is not clear that the Cimbri-Teutoni where Germanic.
They could be Celts or a mixture of both..
A fact is that some Celtic tribes did joined the Cimbri-Teutoni like the Helvetii...

---

Yep, not proven at all. I don't think an alliance with Celtic tribes neccesarily points out that they were Celtic though, because there was not a particular inclination for the different cultures to be hostile. Also, being "Celtic" is largely a question of culture rather than ethnicity; the Gauls were not particularly related to the Britons or peoples living on good old Hibernia, and there were some cases where tribes ethnicly associated with Germanic tribes had adopted Celtic culture.

If we can only have two Germanic tribes, then maybe they should be the Suebii and the Marcomani.