To big an Island

[Arjos]

On my personal note there's no such thing as "unimportant" in history...
As for regions what they need to represent is the population, iirc Ireland in EBII will have only one region, that's quite a drawback, still it's pretty hard to cope with scarse information and the game's limitation...
But the British Isle must have a decent number of settlements in order to give them a comparable demographic weight as they had at that time...

[vartan]

On my personal note there's no such thing as "unimportant" in history...
As for regions what they need to represent is the population, iirc Ireland in EBII will have only one region, that's quite a drawback, still it's pretty hard to cope with scarse information and the game's limitation...
But the British Isle must have a decent number of settlements in order to give them a comparable demographic weight as they had at that time...

Not necessarily. You might represent that as a lot of people in one town in-game. Besides, many or few towns in-game doesn't always have a correspondence with actual towns. It's like medieval Europe 9th/10th CE compared with 11th/12th. In the latter you see increase in towns. So I don't know how EB is going to do it. Will they put more towns where towns were, or will they put more because there were more people. In-game town need not necessarily correlate with in-life town.

[Ichon]

Well usually the region represents the actual region not just a single city though many of the regions are named after the largest known city within that region.

More important is how the social structure is represented... do we assume most low urbanized/non literate cultures were tribal like later Mongols where a khan of khans could emerge and lead united tribes or does it take lots of work to expand and organize. IE- if you start as a 2 region "barbarian" faction do you get to conquest a couple regions and immediately get access to more units since its a broad shared culture or do you have to work at it as hard as Romans or Greeks laying foundation and converting over time the population. Often uniting people under common banner is quite difficult to achieve and even if a population is equal in actual numbers, the population which is divided and fractious will fall before the more organized faction. IE- Gaul against Rome. Because simply saying- well, Britain had as much population as Italy therefor it should have as many regions is a bit simplistic if the people in those regions were not going to easily unite and in the game get much more power than would have been possible historically. IE- British invasion and conquest of Gaul or something.

If it stays similar to EB 1 then most of the factions should still take some work to expand beyond basic military/colonial type rule.

"Intensively agriculturalized Italy" in 150 BCE would support a higher population than Britain. Why a density comparison? Drainage in Italy isn't the problem it is in Britain.

Due to amount of arable land and the crops able to be grown per season/year population density is a better measure of the ability to project a given populations power and culture. A numerous but dispersed population has much more trouble to match a lower population but more densly concentrated population in most cases. IE- steppe cultures in numbers were large measured from Siberia to Crimea and could constantly raid and conquest parts of China but leave relatively little lasting legacy or cultural imprint relatively. Or the reverse... Greeks were relatively concentrated or at least could act as that due to easy sea travel/mobility compared to Perisa but were hugely less in population. For Persia to mobilize an army took much more work than for Greece though Persia was relatively more wealthy as well and if mobilized only 25% of its available manpower for exmaple could still outnumber the Greek mobilizing 90%