Small African Civ!!!

I got a really tight idea, why not make a small, like maybe 4 unit large race of Africans way at the bottom of the map (4 units meaning , native troops to train). That would make Africa a bit more interesting, and kind of balance out that part of the world. Their Units would be very primitive, as they were, with no swords, I dont even know about metal... They would have animal skin shields with some throwing spears, and one spear to fight with. And there best unit would be like a set of chosen men, with pretty much the same stuff as their most basic unit, but more skilled (so much better). On a scale to evryone else Im thinking their best unit would still amount only to about a heroic Casse unit, maybe a little better, but they would have very low defense. Black people are naturally large, and strong though. Maybe if u got far enough into northern africa, or closer to the Ptolemaic empire for instance, you coud start building soldiers with metal spears. But that would be it.
Well what u guys think, it souds cool to me. It would be fun to suprise the Carthaginians with a massive horde of tribal warriors. And none of the other civilizations must know of their existence or have any contact with them to start.

As long as the new faction doesn't have chariots AT ALL and isn't in the north east of the map where all the annoying ass horse archer armies lie, then i'll be happy with it.

Sigh. As we've said half a million times, there will be no african faction. Even the Nubians, the most advanced sub-saharan civilization of the time, was barely out of the bronze age in our period, and relied entirely on the Ptolemies for decent manufactured goods.

I know the modern world has an obsession with multi-culturalism, but the ancients didn't give a damn. To the Ptolemies, and to the native egyptians, Black Africans were a source of mercenaries, a sparse source (not even slaves, since slaves from the mediterranean were cheaper... no racism in the ancient world, just opportunism).

We're going to put a primitive unit or two down there. Don't expect African Supermen, because the first african people south of the sahara above the military horizen (those who do not fight in archaic and ritualistic forms) were the Zulu, and only after the brilliant Shaka. This excludes the Ethiopians of course, who were largely dominated by the Arabs until the collapse of the Sabaean stranglehold on the horn of Africa.

This is not Europa Political Correctum. I have seen not a single shred of evidence for the inclusion of a native black kingdom that would be meaningful in period. Ethiopia, about 600 years after the period, would be worthy of inclusion.

I'm not meaning to sound harsh to anyone in particular, but I'm just not entirely sure why this keeps coming up... The reputable historians and classicists all just ignored Black Athena as racially motivated tripe (as any Eurocentric crap is as well)

Personally, I like truth. It's pretty cool. The only thing I may be guilty of is overestimating the impact of the early semitic peoples, so no racism accusations, please, unless you want to accuse me of philo-semitism ;) In that case, I'd probably agree with you.

Interestingly, political correctness was not the first thought I had when reading the first post. I think we should all be wary of making racial generalizations, a la "all black people are big and strong." I know there's a tendency to do it today, and I know they did it back in the ancient world (every Gaul stands a foot above the average man, etc), but there's something to be said for distancing ourselves from ethnodeterminism. While genetic traits have ethnic links (supposedly many Gauls were indeed quite tall, but the Galatians became less so because of greater intermarriage with other peoples) and are interesting aspects of history, this is a sensitive subject and a dangerous one as well.

That said, I am pretty sure there are some more historical factions the EB team could add that would diversify the EB experience even more than a four unit bronze age african faction.

Well I personnally don't think there is anything wrong with generalising or steriotyping, so long as you realise that they are generalisations and steriotypes.

Yes, Gauls were generally big, strong and emotional, but that doesn't mean they all were. Yes, Germans were huge, red or blond haired and truly terrifying in war but I'm sure somewhere there was a German who just wanted to stay home and compose epic verse.

As to Black Athena, there's a very funny bit in one of my Lecturer's book (Tim Whitmarsh, Introduction to Greek Literature) where he basically refuses to discuss it. That said the idea that the "Arian" theory was fuelled by racism may have some validity. Of course that doesn't make it wrong and it basically isn't.

Generalizations are only called out when some one takes an offense to it. It's not intrinscally bad, however.

I recall a funny bus ride back in my highschool days. A friend of mine was bragging about how well endowed he was, and that without a doubt he was larger than any of us, because apparently black males have large wangs.

This was a generalization, we laughed at him. All in all it went over well.

Then a person said "they can have their large dicks, because most of them are poor and uneducated". This did not go over so well. Infact it almost spurred a fight. A few females even chipped in and reminded us all, in case we didn't know, that many black men are educated and well off. The guy who made the comment was warned not to generalize and say racist things.

It's the intent of how you use the statement and the delivery etc...

People will only call out stereotypes if they take an offense to it. If it's flattering or neutral in nature, they'll either embrace or ignore it.

Saying there is something wrong with stereotypes is like saying... satire is bad... or something.

I would strongly support the inclusion of an African faction, even a weak technologically inferior one that can't possibly beat Carthage or Egypt. I'm not saying this because I'm trying to be ultra politically correct and multicultural, I'm saying this because Africa is a big empty space and something needs to fill it to slow Carthaginian and Ptolemaic expansion. I understand that filling up a huge empty space on the map is not the best justification for putting another faction in Africa, but it is a valid one. There are lots of people who would probably enjoy playing a weak faction struggling to defend itself from Carthage or the Ptolemies. I also wouldn't mind seeing an Arab faction or another German faction.

I will support the EB team's decision about who to possibly replace the Yuezhi with no matter what it is (unless it's something goofy and CAish, which it won't be). After all, its not my mod. I'm just a fan who enjoys editing text, playing the occasionl custom battle, and trying desperately to make my campaigns work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Sigh. As we've said half a million times, there will be no african faction. Even the Nubians, the most advanced sub-saharan civilization of the time, was barely out of the bronze age in our period, and relied entirely on the Ptolemies for decent manufactured goods.

I know the modern world has an obsession with multi-culturalism, but the ancients didn't give a damn. To the Ptolemies, and to the native egyptians, Black Africans were a source of mercenaries, a sparse source (not even slaves, since slaves from the mediterranean were cheaper... no racism in the ancient world, just opportunism).

We're going to put a primitive unit or two down there. Don't expect African Supermen, because the first african people south of the sahara above the military horizen (those who do not fight in archaic and ritualistic forms) were the Zulu, and only after the brilliant Shaka. This excludes the Ethiopians of course, who were largely dominated by the Arabs until the collapse of the Sabaean stranglehold on the horn of Africa.

This is not Europa Political Correctum. I have seen not a single shred of evidence for the inclusion of a native black kingdom that would be meaningful in period. Ethiopia, about 600 years after the period, would be worthy of inclusion.

I'm not meaning to sound harsh to anyone in particular, but I'm just not entirely sure why this keeps coming up... The reputable historians and classicists all just ignored Black Athena as racially motivated tripe (as any Eurocentric crap is as well)

Personally, I like truth. It's pretty cool. The only thing I may be guilty of is overestimating the impact of the early semitic peoples, so no racism accusations, please, unless you want to accuse me of philo-semitism ;) In that case, I'd probably agree with you.

---

To be fair, I don't think the guy was trying to just come up with an excuse to have a group of funky Black men appear in the mod because there was too many White people in Europa Barbarorum, but that there is a pretty amount of territory in Africa and that it might be a quick way to give people a reason to explore it.

Really, the inclusion of such units couldn't be much different than the logic behind putting in those Indian archer units in the near South East Asian section of the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Well I personnally don't think there is anything wrong with generalising or steriotyping, so long as you realise that they are generalisations and steriotypes.

Yes, Gauls were generally big, strong and emotional, but that doesn't mean they all were. Yes, Germans were huge, red or blond haired and truly terrifying in war but I'm sure somewhere there was a German who just wanted to stay home and compose epic verse.

As to Black Athena, there's a very funny bit in one of my Lecturer's book (Tim Whitmarsh, Introduction to Greek Literature) where he basically refuses to discuss it. That said the idea that the "Arian" theory was fuelled by racism may have some validity. Of course that doesn't make it wrong and it basically isn't.

---

People are generally happy with generalizations and stereotypes until they get offended by them.

But whether we like it or not, there usually is a lot of truth in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chester

Generalizations are only called out when some one takes an offense to it. It's not intrinscally bad, however.

I recall a funny bus ride back in my highschool days. A friend of mine was bragging about how well endowed he was, and that without a doubt he was larger than any of us, because apparently black males have large wangs.

This was a generalization, we laughed at him. All in all it went over well.

Then a person said "they can have their large dicks, because most of them are poor and uneducated". This did not go over so well. Infact it almost spurred a fight. A few females even chipped in and reminded us all, in case we didn't know, that many black men are educated and well off. The guy who made the comment was warned not to generalize and say racist things.

It's the intent of how you use the statement and the delivery etc...

People will only call out stereotypes if they take an offense to it. If it's flattering or neutral in nature, they'll either embrace or ignore it.

Saying there is something wrong with stereotypes is like saying... satire is bad... or something.

---

That was a depressing story.

I think the main reason behind the want for an african civ is because it is quite empty down there, it looks like it needs filling up, but as there is no feasible faction to go there it is a bit pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tk-421

I would strongly support the inclusion of an African faction, even a weak technologically inferior one that can't possibly beat Carthage or Egypt. I'm not saying this because I'm trying to be ultra politically correct and multicultural, I'm saying this because Africa is a big empty space and something needs to fill it to slow Carthaginian and Ptolemaic expansion. I understand that filling up a huge empty space on the map is not the best justification for putting another faction in Africa, but it is a valid one. There are lots of people who would probably enjoy playing a weak faction struggling to defend itself from Carthage or the Ptolemies. I also wouldn't mind seeing an Arab faction or another German faction.

---

Africa was a big an empty space. Most that'd need representing could be done with rebels.

First of all I am not particularly in favour of an African Faction, but that's only because I'd much rather see an Attalid Faction in Pergamon and a Syracusan Mini-Faction. However, that is purely personal preference.

I just wanted to point out that lack of credible written sources for the Sabaeans in the EB time frame does not mean that they weren't there. The fact that Graeco-Roman sources don't refer to the Axumite Kingdom until the first century AD merely underlines Graeco-Roman ignorance.
The Axumites certainly didn't spring out of the ground fully formed, but had obviously been developing during the EB time frame, either (as some scholars think) as the Da'amot Kingdom, or as the Sabaeans in Yemen who crossed over the Red Sea into Ethiopia, perhaps as early as the 3rd century BC. So from the point of view of historical relevance/importance/accuracy, the Sabaeans certainly deserve a spot in EB as much as German or 'Iberian' tribes, or a hypothetical 'Koinon Hellenon', for that matter.
Realistically of course that is probably not possible: first of all there is not enough information available about Axumite History in our time period to develop a Faction to the same level as the others already included, and, of course, there doesn't seem to be a member of the dev team interested in doing so, which is probably the overriding criterium anyway. I just wanted to point out that Africa was not then (as it is not now) 'empty'. It is the ethnocentric nature of our recorded history that is empty in that regard. In fact, during the Hellenistic time period the Axumite Kingdom was likely developing in Ethiopia, along with the Himyar, Saba and Ma'in city-states of Arabia Felix. The area was almost certainly much more advanced than the Casse or the Sweboz at the same time. I know that we won't end up with an African Faction (Urnama has spoken), but that doesn't mean that such a faction would be innapropriate for EB.

Still, it might be possible to acknowledge the Axums in some way: perhaps settlements around Yemen/The Horn of Africa could get Trade Caravans? Maybe they already do; my Ptolemies haven't got that far yet.

Remember, Alexander the Great (before EB!) was reportedly considering an invasion of Arabia Felix (i.e. the probably homeland of the Sabaeans) before he kicked, and Augustus actually sent an expedition in 24 BC, which is still in the EB time frame. Neither of these men would have wanted to do so had the area been empty. (I know I'm talking about the extremity of the Arabian Peninsula, but that area was very much linked with the Horn of Africa so I think that the same argument applies).

The Sabeans were in Ethiopia long before the 3rd century BC, in fact by the 3rd century they lost a good deal of thier direct control if not their influence. Axum was a significantly later devlopment though, by the time Axum rose to promiance the Himyarites were the dominat force in South Arabia.

I've actually just completed a university course on Ethiopian history (if you believe my professor, the only one of its kind in North America, though I suspect he may just be blowing hot air) and I have read way more about the area than I ever even thought was written over the past few months. I would be willing to say that a Sabean faction, or even an Axumite one (built to be weak at the opening of the scenario, but capable of growth, as the Axumite kingdom did not become really important until a century or two after the game's start date) would not be out of place.

The problem is, while there is ample information available on either of these two civilizations, as far as I can tell, there isn't anywhere near enough known about the Sabean or Axumite military to make either a viable faction in a wargame such as this.

That is a shame, as I would love to see another African faction, particularily the Axumite kingdom, both for game balance and because of my newfound interest the history of that area.

Oh well, if somebody can prove me wrong about the lack of military information (I would love you if you did!), I have access to plenty of sources for Axumite, and to a lesser degree Sabean, civilization at my disposal, and can contact a pretty respectable scholar to fill in any gaps. I would be willing to do work for the project if enough information is available and anybody shows some interest.

Anyway, I'm new to these boards, but I'm loving the mod so far. Keep up the good work EB team, I can't wait to get my hands on a finished build.

The information on the Sabean military is scanty, but there are a few reliefs and a large number of inscriptions that make it feasible, along with the fact that warfare in the Arabian penisula didn't really change too much between 600 BC and 600 AD.

Umm, Numidia :)

Though personally I think this discussion is a side-effect of extending the map south to cover historically important areas further east and thereby creating a big empty vaccuum. But saharan africa is and was a big empty vaccuum and all you do by adding factions in that region in the game is distract major factions into fighting over sand instead of over the riches of the med.

Should be one vast desert region imo with its settlement in the bottom left corner, too far for the AI to consider attacking. Just a shame you couldn't have an irregular map and just cover the whole area with a nice picture of some sand dunes and a camel.

Unfortunately there can be a maximal distance of, I believe, 50 tiles between settlements of neighboured provinces or there will be a very negative sideffect, I think a serious AI slowdown. So it isn't really possible to have just one huge desert province with a bottom left corner of the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikolai1962

Umm, Numidia :)

Though personally I think this discussion is a side-effect of extending the map south to cover historically important areas further east and thereby creating a big empty vaccuum. But saharan africa is and was a big empty vaccuum and all you do by adding factions in that region in the game is distract major factions into fighting over sand instead of over the riches of the med.

---

I understand your point about the Sahara being big and empty. That doesn't mean that factions won't fight over it. Back when I was still able to play campaigns that is all the Ptolemaoi and Carthaginians did. The presence of weak rebels distracts Carthage and Egypt from "the riches of the med" and encourages them to 'fight over sand". An additional African faction may distract a human player, but it would do more to discourage the rapid conquest of the worthless desert territories by Karthadastim and the Ptolemies.

This problem is also present in Arabia and the large empty space between the Getai, Sarmatians, and Sweboz. Although an African faction would be very good (and if there was no faction limit necessary), I would rather see and Arab or German faction replace the Yuezhi.

Edit: Does 1.5 make romans_senate usable? If so, maybe there could be a Yuezhi-replacing faction plus a new one eventually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikolai1962

Umm, Numidia :)

Though personally I think this discussion is a side-effect of extending the map south to cover historically important areas further east and thereby creating a big empty vaccuum. But saharan africa is and was a big empty vaccuum and all you do by adding factions in that region in the game is distract major factions into fighting over sand instead of over the riches of the med.

Should be one vast desert region imo with its settlement in the bottom left corner, too far for the AI to consider attacking. Just a shame you couldn't have an irregular map and just cover the whole area with a nice picture of some sand dunes and a camel.

---

This has to be the shrewdest observation Ive heard on this thread so far. I totally agree. As it stands, the character of Carthiginian expansion is totally warped. They have no need to expand into spain as they did historically, they just grab colossal chunks of desert and when playing as Rome its gonna take half the game to chase them around in order to finally eradicate them.

What on Earth is wrong with re including Numidia? If this was ported to 1.6 by the way, then their would be no Senate slot, so we'd have 20 factions. As it is, its only going to 1.5, so the Senate one will be lost.

I also agree that Saharan Africa should be one big province with a ring of rocks around its capital to make it unconquerable, which does in fact serve to apply an irregular border to the map. Its also been tried before and the AI knows instinctively that the area is unconquerable and goes elsewhere. One modder even extended just a tiny portion of the unconquerable area to form a little wedge between Carthage and the Ptolemies so that they didnt realise they were neighbours and there were no more inexplicable attacks between the two. I would say the Same of the bulk of the interior of Arabia which never figures as part of any empire on maps of this period. Even Alexander and the Romans never managed that one, so I dont think we should be able to casually send a small unit down there and conquer it after a brief siege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tk-421

Edit: Does 1.5 make romans_senate usable? If so, maybe there could be a Yuezhi-replacing faction plus a new one eventually...

---

Yes. But not as romans_senate you have to change the internal name of the faction to use it.

Well hopefully we can use the core attitudes in 1.5 to make factions fight each other rather than chase down every last rebel on the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldwin of Jerusalem

What on Earth is wrong with re including Numidia? If this was ported to 1.6 by the way, then their would be no Senate slot, so we'd have 20 factions. As it is, its only going to 1.5, so the Senate one will be lost.

---

I already gave you two arguments against them in the "Who's gonna replace the Yuezhi?"-thread. However, given that the team has been quite evasive on the subject I think you may be granted your wish. After all, I argued strongly that Epiros would not make it into the mod because the KH description called Phyrros a rebel, and look what happened ~:) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

This is not Europa Political Correctum.

---

heh. You said rect... never mind. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I already gave you two arguments against them in the "Who's gonna replace the Yuezhi?"-thread. However, given that the team has been quite evasive on the subject I think you may be granted your wish. After all, I argued strongly that Epiros would not make it into the mod because the KH description called Phyrros a rebel, and look what happened ~:) .

---

You did indeed give me two arguments but sadly I felt disinclined to agree with them.

Do you suppose that any modding genius will someday discover how to beat the system and raise the faction limit to 40 or so?

Not unless some modding genius also decides to illegally crack the .exe and mess around a lot.

Been testing the huge sahara theory. There was a CA post that said having settlements more than 50 tiles away caused problems and implied it caused an AI slow-down. What the problem actually is is the AI won't attack,

which is a yay :)

On the vanilla map, using EB factions so numidia was gone, i made sahara huge with the border extended to the sea between egypt and carthage. The settlement was close enough to carthage to attack but the distance between the settlements of sahara and libya (which became the border regions between egypt and carthage was way over 50 tiles. So carthage took one useless desert province and then concentrated on iberia while they and egypt stayed at peace till 14AD.

(The advantage of this over making it unconquerable is ringing the settlement with mountains causes a show_err thing which is a pain when modding as you need show_err to find your own bugs).

I was so pleased this worked. I hate the egypt/carthage sand war so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

This is not Europa Political Correctum.

---

How come there isn't a single unit with the swatstika emblem on the shield? I believe it's historical fact that there were such things during EB's time period perfectly suited for some units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

How come there isn't a single unit with the swatstika emblem on the shield? I believe it's historical fact that there were such things during EB's time period perfectly suited for some units.

---

Well most local units are not in the mod yet so I would think there is plenty of time for a swastika to appear.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
- Marcus Aurelius"

All bachelors are male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
- Marcus Aurelius"

All bachelors are male.

---

not true. a Women can becom a bachelor too if she just studies hard enough.

A bachelor is by definition an unmarried man, i'd like to see a woman try and become that.

Quote:

---

Should be one vast desert region imo with its settlement in the bottom left corner, too far for the AI to consider attacking. Just a shame you couldn't have an irregular map and just cover the whole area with a nice picture of some sand dunes and a camel.

---

Hmm, were there actually camels in the Sahara in the EB timeframe? I think I read somewhere that the Arabs introduced them, when they invaded.

They were certinly in use before the Arab conquests. In Egypt by the Early Dynastic Period the Dromedary is already attested but they don't seem to have been common until contact between the Assyrians and Egyptians was well established. The Bactrian camel seems to have become common after the Persian conquest but by the Ptolemaic period they were certinly widespread as well. In the interior of the Sahara they don't seem to have become common until later, late 2nd/early 3rd century AD.

Ah, thanks Qwerty, I think what I read was referring to the interior. Saying something like, trade with sub-Saharan africa only really occured after the Arab invasion, because they introduced camels which could be used in trade caravans across the desert. :book: But I guess the vanilla Numidian camel riders weren't quite as implausible as I thought...

Even in the interior the camel was around in substanial numbers at least 300 years before the Arab invasions, trans-saharan trade didn't really pick up until people in the Med world figured out they could get gold from West Africa though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikolai1962

Should be one vast desert region imo with its settlement in the bottom left corner, too far for the AI to consider attacking. Just a shame you couldn't have an irregular map and just cover the whole area with a nice picture of some sand dunes and a camel.

---

https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/41...20camel8kd.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

heh. You said rect... never mind. :laugh4:

---

Divinus, you are very immature. You should be ashamed of yourself.







Heh heh... rectum. :jester:

Exactly the kind of historical image i was thinking of :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decimvs Sicinivs Aqvila

Well most local units are not in the mod yet so I would think there is plenty of time for a swastika to appear.

---

I wouldn't count on it. I remember seeing some discussion about this a while ago and it seemed the general EB consensus was not to go with it. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but that is as I recall it.

Hey guys, its me Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom the Magnificent Bastard, and I was the one who started this post. I havent been on in a while, so I can see the topic has changed but just to bring it back to specs...........so, whats the final verdict on this new race to be added to EB in place of the Yuezhi, I argue all the way for a small weak african culture like my idea, or better yet a rentrance of a realisticly weak Numidia, in which one must fight terribly hard to unite the government, so that one can stand a small, proabably doomed, chance of fighting the Carthges, and the Ptolms. Ive heard they were very disorganized so why not make them EXTREMELY dificlut so that those crazy players can have a'go. Would this not atleast slow down the Carthaginians, and the Ptolemies. Anyway, the only other race I would want for the game would be maybe a new Germanic race, to make the "germanic" experience more interesting. :2thumbsup:
Anyway other then that Iell give a big fat Kudos to anyone that can figure out where my name came from. Peace out!

I think that they've already selected a new faction to replace the Yuezhi. In the new preview they showed a picture of a new faction symbol. I've got no idea what it is though. It looks sort of like a combination of a moose, dragon, cat, and maybe a horse.