If you could swap an existing faction for one of the Eleutheroi factions...

[I_damian]

Which would it be? I was just looking around the map at all the "rebel" cities and I understand that it is that way because of engine limitations and that each "rebel" city represents a whole culture (albeit with almost identical units to one of the real factions, again due to engine limitations or because they genuinly were more-or-less identical).

Anyway, for me I'd probably bring the city of Massalia(sp?) to life as a real faction. There's something that I find really fascinating about that particular Greek colony, its perfect location as a faction with the potential to be a really strong sea trading power, land trade with "barbarians" and its dual Greek/Celtic culture. If EB is about starting you off with as much accuracy as possible and then letting you change history from that point then, although the city of Massalia didn't really "do much" in history, it's easy to imagine it at least being capable of carving out a small empire along the southern coast of Gaul and north-eastern coast of Iberia where there is already some Greek culture. For that I'd swap the Casse faction as I hate them and their horrible Generals' chariots. chariots.

What Eleutheroi city/state/faction would you bring to life and which existing faction would you swap for it?

[Brennus]

Bit of a no brainer from me but I would bring in the Bellovaci at the expense of the Saba.

[Arjos]

Force CA to remove these silly engine limits :P

All in all, I like it as it is. The choices cover most of the map, with diverse cultures...
EBII is actually adding the few I wanted, plus the Taksashila surprise ^^
If the others end up being the rest I've imagined, that would be perfect!

Meroe is the one I'm afraid can't be possible, closest I've come to it, was a Saba migration campaign, recruiting only ethiopian and nubian units...
Basically with migrations, you can experience some of those missing factions for the moment :)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

From a game balance point of view, it would have been better to have the Iberians instead of the Casse (to balance the Lusotanns in Spain, so Spain would become like Gaul with two tribal factions constantly at war). This would be more historical than Lusotann domination.

The British tribes historically did nothing but uselessly fight each other, with no strategic result, until the Romans arrived, and in EB the Casse do the same in most games, so I wouldn't miss them.

Also, I'd rather have Numidia-Libya than Saba, to give Carthage an enemy to fight in Africa.

That's my greatest regret about EB 1.

[Brennus]

The British tribes historically did nothing but uselessly fight each other, with no strategic result, until the Romans arrived, and in EB the Casse do the same in most games, so I wouldn't miss them.

Under the rule of Cunobelinos the Catuvellauni established a hegemony over southern Britain that was large enough to cause the Romans to call Cunobelinos the "King of Britain".

[The Celtic Viking]

Saba would definitely be the one to go and I think I would replace them with the Boii. I have a strange liking of the Sequani too, even though they would deserve it less. I think it's their name that does it for me. Mmm... Sequani... I could have me some of that alright.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Under the rule of Cunobelinos the Catuvellauni established a hegemony over southern Britain that was large enough to cause the Romans to call Cunobelinos the "King of Britain".

Yes, but he ruled from 9 AD to 35 AD, basically outside the EB time period. I'm talking about Britain in the BCE period. The Britons, even in southeastern Britain, had never been united until Ceasar invaded Britain. So obviously only the shock of a foreign invader on their soil caused the British tribes to even consider working together.