What faction did you play first?

[Fondor_Yards]

I honestly have no idea, .7 was what 1.5-2 years ago? More? God I've playing EB long. Anyway, the most likely faction would be Kart-Hadastim.

[DeathEmperor]

I remember it quite vividly, EB .80 as Epeiros. I'd been playing RTR for months and was getting tired of it, when an old friend of mine said I should try EB since there was so much attention to history in it (I was and still am a history nut ). After downloading and installing it I chose Epeiros as they weren't in RTR at the time, and I was fascinated by Pyrrhus and his ill-fated campaign against the Romans. That campaign was the most enjoyable I've ever had, second only to the Arche Seleukeia campaign I successfully completed a few months ago.

I enjoyed it so much that I actually wrote a short story about it from the first person perspective of his son Amyntas. Was my first time writing in the 'first person form' too, and I learned a lot from it. I'd start an Epeirote campaign right now if I wasn't so enthralled by my current Romani one.

[Karo]

my first campaigne was with Hayastan back in .7. Back the Hayastan campaigne was hard now it's become very easy. I remeber that the rebels around Hayastan had horse archer stacks and fighting them was real hell. The good old days

[Celtic_Punk]

I don't know why, but I'm slightly bothered by the large number of players who first chose the Romans. Maybe they chose it because they only played as them in vanilla, or maybe cause they were their favourites before they tried EB. but the romans i find are very dull. The other factions have been painstakingly crafted and it seems everyone jumps in for the old workhorse. the easiest of them all. I mean when you start off with the Romans, your automatically making tons of coin. Everyone else you gotta put work in. whether it be disbanding units and fleets or conquering, all other factions require you to fight for your own survival. the Romans are the only faction in which your survival is almost guaranteed.

if anyone who hasn't tried EB yet and is reading this, go for a different faction, the challenge is certainly worth it.

By the way, im not really trying to bash the players who love the romans, im just expressing my surprise and awe at the fact that so many people decided to chose the easy route, instead of taking on a true challenge.

"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-Robert Frost

[MerlinusCDXX]

Epeiros in .80, they weren't in RTR, which I'd been playing back then. I picked 'em because they had the first crack at the Romans. Really dug the accurate Hellenistic factions, so I went on to Baktria after that.

[machinor]

I first played Carthage in 1.0, which was also the first faction I played in RTR and the first faction I played af the Scipii in the original RTW. Second was Epeiros and then Baktria.

Haven't played with Romani so far.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't know why, but I'm slightly bothered by the large number of players who first chose the Romans. Maybe they chose it because they only played as them in vanilla, or maybe cause they were their favourites before they tried EB. but the romans i find are very dull. The other factions have been painstakingly crafted and it seems everyone jumps in for the old workhorse. the easiest of them all. I mean when you start off with the Romans, your automatically making tons of coin. Everyone else you gotta put work in. whether it be disbanding units and fleets or conquering, all other factions require you to fight for your own survival. the Romans are the only faction in which your survival is almost guaranteed.

if anyone who hasn't tried EB yet and is reading this, go for a different faction, the challenge is certainly worth it.

By the way, im not really trying to bash the players who love the romans, im just expressing my surprise and awe at the fact that so many people decided to chose the easy route, instead of taking on a true challenge.

I am not sure if the Romans had money coming in after the first turn without conquering or disbanding. I really doubt that. Then again, it has been quite a while since I began my Romani campaign. Ptolemies and Seleucids, from my experience, are much easier to start out with (at least from the financial perspective). People don't play the Romani because it seems like they are the easiest faction. You really don't know how difficult/easy it will be with them before they start the campaign (although the difficulty for each faction is indicated when you're choosing a faction for the campaign, I don't find that to be entirely accurate). No. Gamers choose the Romans mostly because they like the Roman history and the Roman military.

I am one of those people. I am not hiding that fact. To hell with political correctness, Romans and Seleucids were the two superpowers during the EB time period and they mattered the most. As the Seleucids declined, the Romans took their place. When comparing other nations with these two empires, those nations seem trivial. They still mattered, but not as much. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the other nations, its just that we need to understand the special place the Latin people held in that time period.

I have read read more than a hundred books on the various aspects of the Roman history, culture as well as military and had not found a single civilization of their time period who had so much written about them, nor one that left us so much legacy (just look at the European languages and laws - most of them are modifications of Latin language and Roman law). It was on the foundation of Greeks and Romans that Western civilization was funded, which came to dominate the globe.

Roman Empire was the most well structured in the Ancient World, if not in the entire history of human empires. It was incredibly long lasting for its time and encompassed the most vital regions of the Antiquity. If the Romans would have controlled China, they would have controlled pretty much all of the civilized and organized world. Although India, parts of Africa and America had their own civilizations, those civilizations were not as organized (in large nations under a single government) as China or the Mediterranean.

[QuintusSertorius]

Romani. Aside from my stint playing Epeiros-as-Pergamon, they're pretty much all I will play too.

When EBII comes out, the only factions I'm interested in are Rome and Pergamon.

[Laman]

Unless I'm remembering wrong, Romans. Thought it would be a good idea to pick a faction that was easy to get going and experience all the new stuff of EB without immediately getting into a very large debt. Was right.

[Tollheit]

To hell with political correctness, Romans and Seleucids were the two superpowers during the EB time period and they mattered the most. As the Seleucids declined, the Romans took their place. When comparing other nations with these two empires, those nations seem trivial. They still mattered, but not as much. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the other nations, its just that we need to understand the special place the Latin people held in that time period.

This is not about political correctness. It's more like "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni", for me.

Edit: The victorious cause pleased the gods, but the defeated cause pleased Cato

[Moros]

This is not about political correctness. It's more like "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni", for me.

I hope he knows latin otherwise it'd be quite funny!

Edit: am I the only one that is waiting for TPC to enlighten this fella? Cause he seems to have left out a rather big 'barbarian' culture that was a bit important.

[The Persian Cataphract]

I am not sure if the Romans had money coming in after the first turn without conquering or disbanding. I really doubt that. Then again, it has been quite a while since I began my Romani campaign. Ptolemies and Seleucids, from my experience, are much easier to start out with (at least from the financial perspective). People don't play the Romani because it seems like they are the easiest faction. You really don't know how difficult/easy it will be with them before they start the campaign (although the difficulty for each faction is indicated when you're choosing a faction for the campaign, I don't find that to be entirely accurate). No. Gamers choose the Romans mostly because they like the Roman history and the Roman military.

I am one of those people. I am not hiding that fact. To hell with political correctness, Romans and Seleucids were the two superpowers during the EB time period and they mattered the most. As the Seleucids declined, the Romans took their place. When comparing other nations with these two empires, those nations seem trivial. They still mattered, but not as much. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the other nations, its just that we need to understand the special place the Latin people held in that time period.

I have read read more than a hundred books on the various aspects of the Roman history, culture as well as military and had not found a single civilization of their time period who had so much written about them, nor one that left us so much legacy (just look at the European languages and laws - most of them are modifications of Latin language and Roman law). It was on the foundation of Greeks and Romans that Western civilization was funded, which came to dominate the globe.

Roman Empire was the most well structured in the Ancient World, if not in the entire history of human empires. It was incredibly long lasting for its time and encompassed the most vital regions of the Antiquity. If the Romans would have controlled China, they would have controlled pretty much all of the civilized and organized world. Although India, parts of Africa and America had their own civilizations, those civilizations were not as organized (in large nations under a single government) as China or the Mediterranean.

...

Okay. To hell with "political correctness", you say. How do you react if I say I don't believe you for a single moment? What do you mean by "Western civilization" and what do you mean by "Greek and Roman foundations"? What do you mean by that the Seleucids were replaced by the Romans? What do you mean by that the Graeco-Roman legacy "dominated the globe"? What do you mean by not as "organized" as China or the Mediterranean? I suppose that by your flawed logic you would also like to imply that through Alexander's conquests he civilized the Oriental barbarians, and their Persian overlords? Is that it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now, I want you and only you to identify this individual depicted on this coin. I'll give you a hint. His empire stretched from the Oxus, Indus, Euphrates and the Araxes-Kura. His coins are by far the most abundant of his dynasty, and perpetuated well into application by a successor dynasty about two centuries later.

When you are done, try this fellow:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the entirety of your well-phrased but ignorant message, I call bullshit, and I'll double it. I say it is the typical early Classicist and Victorian Anglophilic bile which has been perpetuated until this day, and has sought to downplay Eastern nations as back-water nations. The dogma of Graeco-Roman historiography forming the basis of the "Western world" needs to die. It needs to fucking go, because it's all unfounded bullshit and gross trivialization of history and its inherent complexity. Supposedly the Dark and Middle ages up until the Medieval age and the advent of the "European Renaissance" there is a connotation between Western Europe and the Roman world! This is thievery, and worse, what actually is the historical wealth of all of mankind has now been hogged by the entity which calls itself the "Western world".

It is just as bad as the dogmatic designations of "Islamic science/medicine/architecture/art". As much as Britain relates to Roman architecture, does Islam relate to Persian medicinal practices.

Way to go. You managed to effectively erase the following two empires because of your resounding ignorance:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/collec...mes/pargeo.htm

http://www.armeniapedia.org/images/6...-haik2-big.jpg

With all due respect, sir, but your "political incorrectness" backfired into a rant containing outdated, traditionalistic and downrightly colonialist rhetoric which Iranology not only eats for breakfast, but practically lives for when it comes to scrutinizing old scholastics. The worldly influence of the Persianate cultures in the Iranian plateau, Caucasus, Anatolia and Central Asia are not only beyond dispute, but also the core of the concept comparable to the Graeco-Roman legacy.

What you have written in other words is the same as that of Sir Edward Creasy on the battles of Gaugamela and Marathon:

"Alexander's victory at Arbela not only overthrew an Oriental dynasty, but established European rulers in its stead. It broke the monotony of the Eastern world by the impression of Western energy and superior civilization, even as England's present mission is to break up the mental and moral stagnation of India and Cathay by pouring upon and through them the impulsive current of Anglo-Saxon commerce and conquest."

"The Greeks, from their geographical position, formed the natural vanguard of European liberty against Persian ambition ; and they pre-eminently displayed the salient points of distinctive national character which have rendered European civilization so far superior to Asiatic."

Do you identify yourself with these assessments?

I know I identify myself with Hans Holbein (The Younger), as far as these discrepancies are concerned:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nusHolbein.jpg

[TWFanatic]

With all due to respect, getting angry over these issues only serves to dilute your own arguments TPC by making it a simple case of one pride and arrogance vs. another. You are certainly capable of either brushing those comments off or responding to them in a calm and detached manner. There are plenty of bloviators online and you can't bother to educate them all. I don't think Aemilius Paulus is an academic anyway.

I think that one of the major problems here is that many professors try to press their ideology upon their students. Anyone who doesn't comply is exiled from the academic community, resulting in a strong dogma in many corners. I cannot tell you how many grade reductions I received because of a refusal to comply with the "superiority of the west" nonsense espoused by, for instance, Victor Davis Hanson’s The Western Way of War and Carnage and Culture. I learned the hard way that losing my temper did me no good. Debating those persons in a civilized manner is far more effective, especially when the evidence is on your side as it is here.

All that said, the lack of educational freedom in Iran is even worse. One of my roommates fled Iran so that he did not have to join the army. He was only just learning of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid empires because his former government forbid the teaching of pre-Islamic history. By forcing teachers to profess that everything before Islam was a dark and evil age, the dogmas of Iranian historiography are far more effective in suppressing the study of ancient Persian history than any feeble attempts by westerners.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I played Epeiros first.

I had never seen them in a game before (except AoE, and then they were actually macedonians with a funny name), and I like their position on the map. I wasn't prepared for the high upkeep in EB, though, so even though I managed to conquer dalmatia, I was in debt within two turns, and, foolishly, I didn't disband the elephants.

The only campaign I've had to give up because of personal bankrupcy....

[Andronikos]

My first game was 0.80 as Casse. I wanted to try some barbarian factions because I wanted to see the difference between EB and vanilla. I got crushed very early by the rebels. Then I tried Bactria with not very glorious end. I got used to EB and my later Aedui and Makedonia campaigns were more successful. Now I can play harder factions like Pahlava or Pontos and kick anybodys ass.

[Steve2392]

I first played as Rome because i find their rise to be so interesting how one city state grew and took over most of the known world

also can anybody help me out. I cant seem to find any of the roman units on custom battle they all just seem to be mercs etc i cant find cohorts etc any help would be appreciated thanks

[Lysimachos]

also can anybody help me out. I cant seem to find any of the roman units on custom battle they all just seem to be mercs etc i cant find cohorts etc any help would be appreciated thanks

You have to start the game with the Multiplayer shortcut.

[Subedei]

Either Grey Death or Epiros in 0.7 something, I think AS....loved it instantly...You guys are to blame for my first mod installation and exp ever! Have a ballon for that

[Ayce]

The Getai, that's why I got EB in the first place.

[Moosemanmoo]

Epeiros, just wanted to quickly kick some Roman ass