I wouldn't be surprised if....

**Ludens** · 10-08-2010, 15:17

Originally Posted by Andy1984

I thought a Galatian-Bythnian faction was considered but ruled out. No idea where I read that.

IIRC the Galatians were one of the candidates for the final faction slot of EB1, which eventually went to the Saba. They are a candidate for EB2. That said, Asia Minor is already very crowded, so I am not sure if they are going to put another faction there. The Bythnians were allied to the Galatians at EB's start date or near enough; and together they make a far more viable faction than the Galatians alone.

**Horatius Flaccus** · 10-08-2010, 17:18

This was the post of Krusader:

Originally Posted by Krusader

Bithynia was a strong kingdom and if they would be included in 272 BC they would be included as the Koinon Bithynia-Galatikoi. Yes, a joint Bithynian-Galatian faction.
However, Anatolia is just too crowded and it would force wars immediately, so it is most likely they will not be included.

So I wouldn't count on them being included.

**B-Wing** · 10-08-2010, 19:30

I don't know, I think it might be cool if Anatolia became an even more intense war zone than it already is in EB1. I don't think that it would necessarily the best way to allocate the remaining faction slots, but given all the factions that have already been ruled out, I'm struggling to think of 6 solid contenders even if you count the Galatians. If Galatia was included, they'd have to have a pretty flexible AoR for the surrounding regions in order to build any kind of empire, since there's not a lot of other Celts nearby.

**Brennus** · 10-09-2010, 20:20

Originally Posted by Blxz

I didn't realize there was such extensive archeaological evidence on any baltic peoples. I thought the main reason that they have never been a faction is that there is just insufficient information on them at that time in history. If there really is that much data then I doubt a lack of governmental knowledge would be the reason for not including them.

Archaeology alone cannot recreate a faction as much as I wish it could. With regards to the Balts in 272BC we (as far as I know) do not know any tribal names of people inhabitting that region, what they referred to themselves as, the diplomatic stance between the Baltic tribes and their Indo-Aryan, Germanic and Celtic neighbours, the socio-economic models they employed and the personal names of their leaders. Without this info it is impossible to recreate a faction.

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I don't know, I think it might be cool if Anatolia became an even more intense war zone than it already is in EB1. I don't think that it would necessarily the best way to allocate the remaining faction slots, but given all the factions that have already been ruled out, I'm struggling to think of 6 solid contenders even if you count the Galatians. If Galatia was included, they'd have to have a pretty flexible AoR for the surrounding regions in order to build any kind of empire, since there's not a lot of other Celts nearby.

I agree, even if Anatolia already has a substantial number of factions a suitable faction shouldn't be ruled out based on the worry that a region is too crowded. Greece is already crowded and from what I have read in various posts one of the most enjoyable areas to play as a faction. Furthermore the Galatians would add an interesting flavour to a region in which phalanx battles are the norm. With regards to new factions I can't forsee there being any further Hellenic factions considering EBII is already set to include 8 truely Hellenic factions (AS, KH, Makedon, Epeiros, Pergamon, Ptolemies, Bosporans, Baktria). At present there is a fair discrepency in terms of the number of "barbarian" factions 4 Celtic Speakers (Aedui, Arverni, Boii and Pritanoi) 1 Iberian (Lusotana), 1 Dacian (Getai) and one German (Sweboz). The Galatians are probably one of the few "barbarian" factions you could add to the game considering the 272BC start date. The only other "barbarianas" I think you could seriously add would be the Insubres, Belgae, Arevaci and possibly the Marcomanni but none of these tribes enjoy the same historical information as the Galatians (with the exception of the Insubres, however the Insubres were on the retreat from 272BC until their final conquest by the Romans).

BY 42BC the Galatians had conquered both Phrygia, Cilicia and Lycia and had played a major part in the regions politics throughout this period, fighting Pergamon, Pontos, Rome and the Seleucids and adopting varying diplomatic stances towards each power. As I stated before the Galatians had a far greater impact upon the present EB faction list than factions like the Casse/Pritanoi (conflict with the Belgae c.120-100BC and a brief role in the Gallic Wars) and the Saba. I agree that the EB team was right in choosing the Saka as a faction over the the Galatians, after all the Saka conquered Baktria and established a kingdom in India, but to disqualify them as an EBII faction based purely on a fear that the region they inhabitted would become overcrowed is wrong.

RE Ludens, I don't expect an answer but, have the Belgae been ruled out as a potential EBII faction?