Printable View
Alll the Factions are great, I know, but if you had to choose, what faction would you take out in favour of a new one/which faction you hate the most/etc. I would not be surprised if there are no votes or countless flames.
(Sorry for my Reckless Spelling)
You don't have to choose. There are an some 10 extra faction slots for EB2. :inquisitive:
EDIT: Voted for the Romani, btw.
Seleukids.
You get my vote for the most useless poll ever. :gah2:
Actually, I believe the true answer would be the Eleutheroi, but that would be impossible.
Yes, lets remove the eleutheroi.
I'm in.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
I say neutral.
GD-this poll is useless.
I am fully aware about the extra ten slots, but there were so many factions trying to get at each oher in those times. Wonder if the EB tea:shame:m will go to ETW, but that seems extremely doubtful.
"Don't have any Romans!" hmm... yeah, right...
I voted nuetral, thinking that eant Eleutheroi. I would love to see the map carpeted with playable factions and the rest unplayable Eremos.
Yeah what have they ever done for us? Apart from giving us a 20% health bonus and a 5% law bonus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Casse... they usualy just sit down and didn't got full britania, and even in alex, their landing force is effectively (often) blocked by aedui... looking one faction sit down with just one territory, and not at war with anyone is somewhat "silly" better to made them extended aedui territory tough...
Butthis was my statement only because Casse inactivity..... If U can made them more aggresive in EB II they're fine anyway...
Remove the Romans!
I gave the Casse 1 Belgian settlement in ~220BCQuote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
It is now 140BC (they are role played as numbers 23 and 18)
https://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e..._G/SPQR140.jpg
Map from this post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=995
Thats a big chunk of Germania there.
Sadly, I did not consider the Eleutheroi in the poll:sweatdrop:.
Sab'yn is a waste, you rarely get to meet them and the sit and squat in that tiny corner of Arabia they got there. Nobody would want to even bother to get there because it is too far from the main field of action (Namely Greece, Italy, Asia Minor and Germany).
Not if you play the ptolemaioi they're not! My cities in the levant are always being attacked by the little buggers and come EB II when naval invasions will actually happen they will make holding on to the upper nile area a real pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatia
Ahh.... I see. Normally I play mainly European Campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Hey, what about this. What if THe EBII team got an extra faction to be with Sab'yn on the Arabic Peninsula or be on east Africa to give The Ptolemaioi EXTREME HELL!!!
:egypt::smash: :laugh4:
Seeing you get pwned would be priceless, especially for sucessor haters.
Dont worry. You'll be fine. :skull:
Plus, the engine requires factions to let cities rebel to. Thus if no Saba what Arabian faction would cover for Arabia Felix (Yemen) ? Should we go back to the days of 0.74 when you'd see Parthia and Ptolemaioi at war over Carna (because Carna rebelled to Parthia because it was chosen to meet this requirement) ?
Well, if the cities rebelled, can't they rebel to the rebels (Slave)?
Ha! no need to worry, I'm about to invade their homelands with my ethiopian army they won't be around for much longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatia
As for a new faction it might happen on the peninsula but not in east africa as there are no more culture slots left (you would have non black family members!).
Also you neglected to place Pergamon on the poll, who is now a confirmed faction >_>
for the sake of more Aggresive Saby'n I suggest EB II gives all the southren arabia with them... not too historic maybe... but it will boost their economic strength... My Ptolemaioi campaign usually quell them relatively easy... they are the weakest faction anyways...
In EB II we're going to try to represent trade and economy better. Especially when it comes to chokepoints, trade routes and valuable resources. Also the naval trade from India to Arabia will be represented better. That and a more fleshed out unit rooster will make the Sabaeans a somewhat stronger enemy especially if they're allowed to get a monopoly on the Arabian peninsula.
exactly. this is a historic mod, so no, they probably won't give any real territory, aside from what is already in EB I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
a neighboring tribe, like that in himyar** or qataban**, or even a Omani faction (tribe of azd*) would be a better idea, as it has been my observation that having multiple factions close to one another increases activity (look at gaul, AS, ptolies, etc).
*I don't know for sure if they were unified at the time, though I know the lakhmids and ghassanids came from there, and they were very quarrelsome. perhaps its just distance in time and place?
**strabo did IIRC mention both, especially qataban (Cattabania), so they would ave existed in the EB time frame. but whether they were of any importance politically in the EB timeframe is a mystery. I know Himyar was the top dog from c.100AD on to 525AD, but not about beore hand.
Makedonia. What a useless faction.
Dumb polls and quoting yourself in your sig. You're starting to grow on me, son.
Oh, Lusitani. Definitely. Maybe.
But you are speaking sarcasm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
:tongue:
Lol
None of em ....
:belly:
:tumbleweed:
~:grouphug:
:weirdthread:
Romani, definitely.
Qatabân was about the same strength as Saba by our gamestart. While the Sabaeans might have a bigger population, the Qatabân king had better control over trade resources. He was also the one carrying the title mukkarib, which inclined that the carrier was the most influential king of the region. However in an all war situation it could go either way as the difference wasn't that big, though Qatabân usually tended to be the winner untill the uprise of the Himyar. When it was largely Saba and Himyar who were contending each other. Then we still have the Ma'in and Hadramawt who were working together in a way, sort of alliance perhaps, who alone were weaker thn the Qatabân and Sabaeans but together were in league. However the Ma'in and hadramawt only tried to rival economically anf tradewise and were not under such a centralised poltical structure as the Sabaeans and Qatabân or so it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
This poll is a bit like a broken pencil.
...
Pointless.
What should we do to him boys? *branishes xiphos*Quote:
Originally Posted by penguinking
Ah well, at least now is not "choppy choppy time".Quote:
Originally Posted by machinor
Don't forget Prince Ludwig, the master of disguises!
Ah, I see there are fellow aficionados. :beam:
Yes, what have they ever done for us!? Just replace them with some strong Eleutheroi stacks or something like that. Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
That xiphos won't do you any good unless you brandish it, mate. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by machinor
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I don't know about you guys but I've never heard of most of these factions, and I've watched a lot of history channel, so they can't be that important. I think we can safely clump everyone, apart from the almighty world inheriting Romans, as Greeks and Barbarians, which frees up about...15 new factions which we can use to represent the leading Roman families. Of course we'll need a few new cities in Italy to house all these families, so we'll just give the map a bit of a hair cut, say north south line through the Caspian Sea, nothing important happened over there anyway.
While we're at it we might use the last faction spot (you weren't paying attention were you?) for an emergent faction, the legendary tribes of Bartix, just to keep things interesting before what promises to be a fairly hectic Roman civil war.
If this gonna be true, the slots are better used to represent Athenai, Sparte, Rhodos, and much Diadochian family too... btw, in this period... Romans are just a bunch of arrogant people who lived in Italia... Fortuna seems to prefer them anyway...Quote:
Parkev
Re: What confirmed faction should not be in EBII?
I don't know about you guys but I've never heard of most of these factions, and I've watched a lot of history channel, so they can't be that important. I think we can safely clump everyone, apart from the almighty world inheriting Romans, as Greeks and Barbarians, which frees up about...15 new factions which we can use to represent the leading Roman families. Of course we'll need a few new cities in Italy to house all these families, so we'll just give the map a bit of a hair cut, say north south line through the Caspian Sea, nothing important happened over there anyway.
While we're at it we might use the last faction spot (you weren't paying attention were you?) for an emergent faction, the legendary tribes of Bartix, just to keep things interesting before what promises to be a fairly hectic Roman civil war.
Agree. Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Have you ever thought about that in EBII wich is based on MTWII the corner-factions like saba and casse will probably act much better?
well think about it.
btfw, who needs rome? ;)
Alright, so I can play as the Scipii, or maybe the Brutii? And we can lump the Macedonians with the Greek cities, since nobody can tell the difference between them anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
I see.
If so, then it makes sense to have an extra faction there-for similar reasons to the gauls current format. Qataban or Himyar clearly are two excellent choices, based on this:2thumbsup:
No more of those arabian desert factions, please...
There's no evidence that they ever expanded further than their core lands, of course they had a lot of trade going but all the TW engines arent really good at simulating trade empires
Maybe not Himyar as they seem to have only appeared on the scene around 110bc, would quite like to see Qataban in the game though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
I think this guy gets a xiphos in the face straight after Alsatia...you're knowledge of the ancient world is entirely based on 'a lot of history channel'? Why are you here? Go away!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkev
And stop quoting Bartix. You weren't there man! You don't know what it was like...!
I think he was being just the tiniest bit ironic, unless you are too.....owww my head.
Psst...I carefully worded my response so that it would work whether he was joking or being serious...yay
actually, they did try to expand their influnce accross the peninsula*, but that didn't turn out too well. problem was authority; the various tribes and even other south arabians owed none to saba', and all wanted to have the leader's status, and so just ended up cancelling each other out through intertribal and interkingdom warfare. to have more than on Arabian faction allows the option to simulate this (add fun), and to see what would happen if one of the cities won on the other...Quote:
Originally Posted by snude
besides, I want factional violence between two arabian factions-its kinda boring watching Arabia just become sabaean in EB1
:2cents:
*this went on till 525 AD, when the south Arabians were first conquered by the Ethiopeians, then finally the persians. the area remained persian till ~628AD
The himyar appear at the utmost end of the 2nd Cenutry BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
yeah, my bad:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Just hope that Casse will act as true Britons... In my M2TW games, England usually pwnd French
Casse. Not much evidence for their existence, even less for expansionist tendencies. I say make them a bunch of strong Eleutheroi cities. They are still a treasure chest for European factions, but you don't have united British Isles or ahistorical mainland expansion.
Yes, they're super-cool. No, they're not super-historical.
Everything that will be in EBII will have it's sources listed. When we are ready you can view them and give your criticism. You can't critize a mod you haven't played yet, that's not fair. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Agree with the above post.
I don't watch History channel, heck, I don't even have pay TV. This poll was made out of simple curiosity. May as well let you wrestle each other to the ground.
What, do you have some new trove of information about the pre-literate people of the British Isles? Something that I have never heard of? I'd be interested in seeing sources before the game is released. I mean, it should be a matter of pointing me in the direction of the books you're using. Unless we're dealing with more dubious "unpublished" research. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
For realies, I'd love to see what you're using for sources, and I'd love to see a justification for having that faction. Is there any evidence of a unified Britain or mainland expansionist tendencies by it's inhabitants? Those were pretty important factors in the Celtiberian thread recently.
That was a comparison between two choices in the same area. To apply that same argument to an area that does not have that same choice is hardly decent logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
We will release our sources when we are ready to. This may be before the release of the game, but more than likely it will be after.
However, I will try my best to make a "Lobf" copy of EBII that completely removes all reference to the british isles and any people living on it. I hope that suffices.
Foot
PS Please note that the above paragraph is an exaggaration for dramatic purposes. I include this PostScript because I know how much Lobf enjoys jumping on any percieved personal attack as proof positive of the ahistorical nature of the EB Team and the EB mod.
I don't understand what you are referring to. Could you clarify?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
What's the point of waiting except so that nobody can review your choices? If you are confident with your selection, you should be willing to cite your sources.Quote:
We will release our sources when we are ready to. This may be before the release of the game, but more than likely it will be after.
Come on, man. It's like arguing with my girlfriend sometimes. I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying that they shouldn't be a faction, not that there should be no Britain. It makes perfect sense for them to be strong Eleutheroi cities; much more sense than having a unified British faction.Quote:
However, I will try my best to make a "Lobf" copy of EBII that completely removes all reference to the british isles and any people living on it. I hope that suffices.
This barely makes sense. I come here to read about history. My complaints have never (or rarely) been about being personally attacked.Quote:
PS Please note that the above paragraph is an exaggaration for dramatic purposes. I include this PostScript because I know how much Lobf enjoys jumping on any percieved personal attack as proof positive of the ahistorical nature of the EB Team and the EB mod.
If your intention is to best reflect the world of 272 BC, then can someone give me a reason for including the Casse? It's not like it's a personal issue for me to not have a British faction. In fact the Casse were one of my favorite factions initially because they have a great starting position and room to expand to at their leisure. If someone can just give me a reason for their inclusion I'd back it 100%.
The argument you cite was whether the celtiberians were more important than the lusotannan, and whether the celtiberians should have been represented above the Lusotannan. That question is very different to whether the british isles should be represented with a faction. Your original statement was to the effect that because there was no evidence of unification or mainland expansion the british isles should not be inhabited by a faction. However the question of the representation of the british isles is in no way reflected in the argument that occured in the celtiberian thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
I hope that is clear enough.
Because only once the product is near a completed state will it be possible to establish a bibliography? No one releases the bibliography before they've written the book.Quote:
What's the point of waiting except so that nobody can review your choices? If you are confident with your selection, you should be willing to cite your sources.
Because the logistical effort of compiling a complete list of sources and references takes time, time that is currently better spent on putting together a mod that people can play.
Because, contrary to popular belief, our main objective has never been to respond to the criticism of the doggedly persistent. It has been to make a game.
I'm sure the your theory about the team, however, will satisfy you more than any of the above answers.
I know you read my PS, so I can't imagine how you saw fit to respond to this. However, we are not advocating in any sense of the word, a unified british faction. We seek, however, to represent to our player base the interesting set-up of tribes and identities, populations and military of a fascinating area of the ancient world. There was an idea of writing a poem to describe this island, however we realised that we were modders and so decided that it would be far better to put a faction there instead.Quote:
Come on, man. It's like arguing with my girlfriend sometimes. I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying that they shouldn't be a faction, not that there should be no Britain. It makes perfect sense for them to be strong Eleutheroi cities; much more sense than having a unified British faction.
Has that meant that we have made some conclusions that cannot be fully deducted from the evidence we have? Yes, such is history. Have we done so more than we have for other factions? Yes. Has that been necessary? Yes. Can we not just shift that faction slot to another area where less inferences need to be made? Possibly, but then I would also suggest that we remove Hayasdan as well. The archaelogical record (at the moment) is almost non-existent for our time-period, and as for written sources, they are contradictory, unsatisfactory and annoyingly limited.
However, you seem to have become obessed with the british isles. Well done.
Not a personal issue. I think we'll find that nearly 100% of your posts on these forums have been about the Casse and your complaints. Talk about something else for a change. Really. Do some reading on Hayasdan and come back with your unique brand of criticism on that faction. I would relish the challenge.Quote:
This barely makes sense. I come here to read about history. My complaints have never (or rarely) been about being personally attacked.
If your intention is to best reflect the world of 272 BC, then can someone give me a reason for including the Casse? It's not like it's a personal issue for me to not have a British faction. In fact the Casse were one of my favorite factions initially because they have a great starting position and room to expand to at their leisure. If someone can just give me a reason for their inclusion I'd back it 100%.
Sometimes you just have to realise that we are shouting Yah-boo to each other, and there is nothing else to say on the matter.
Foot
Makedonia, for they got conquered by the Romani.
Isn't it a bit stupid to argue with a member of the EB team.
Did you suggest that you will kick Hayasdan? Or was that an Example?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
The EB Team, to my understanding, has been hit repeatedly with threats and complaints. I believe that if we let the team alone, give a few friendly suggestions, they will get thew job done faster, we can then enjoy EBII (hopefully) before 2012.
Mind you, sayng that Macedonia is rubbish (not that I am) will get a few interesting replies......
I think they could merge all the unwashed barbarians into one faction, all the greeks into the "greek cities" and divide the roman in 3 useless factions. Then Bactria should be renamed to Bartix, and given some Yutseb elephants and Amazon chariots.
Just kidding :beam:
this thread is pointless, we have both place for all the current factions and for the new ones as well.
faction fanaticism really annoys me :thumbsdown:
And so it does. This is an opinion thread. Like "If you had a choice" kind of thing.
but the thread has already been another place of "greko-roman thread fights".... :thumbsdown:
more than 20 wants romani to be omitted...
some may think this thread as fun but there is no use for a neutral idea here...
Well, I did not make the tread on the intention of a Roman vs Greece fight, People just get moody at times, especially when it comes to factions. I should of saw this as inevitable.....
Neutral being that you want none to be omitted. Opinions differ, and I have to respect that.
To me it's quite senseless to cancel factions that took great influence to history like the romans . It's as senseless as canceling the Eleutheroi ^^
hahaha rome got 18 votes. Great
hey what if i suggested a black dominated faction (Ethiopia maybe?i think they were farther down Africa)
If you can find a way to add another culture slot, that would indeed be great! But, alas...Quote:
Originally Posted by AttilaDerHunn
Hopefully.........(I think Mr. boom-boom will get angry at CA if they didnt add another culture slot to R2:TW and he WILL bring his friend Mr.C4:yes:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
why do people argue against the EB team? I mean it's a mod, even if there were any flaws (I can't see them), I mean ITS A MOD:wall::beam::smash:
As for the quiz: obviously the Seleukids and the Ptolemies should be deleted and their provinces just given to Sweboz. That could easily simulate the same development of the world as the current array of factions does.