An interview with....

[Brennus]

Thank you for waiting Europa Barbarorum II fans. This time we are pleased to bring you the words of our Roman historian Gaius Scribonius Curio

EB II:What is your role in the Europa Barbarorum II team?

My main role within the EB II is, as stated by Brennus, the Faction Historian for the Romani. Given, however, that prior to me joining the team a veritable mountain of work had already been done on this faction I have been turning my attention to other areas. Particularly, I have taken responsibility for the Bosporan Kingdom, and have, in a clinch, had some involvement in the development of the Numidian faction.

EB II:What is the most challenging aspect of your work?

The most challenging aspect of my work so far has been researching in areas for which both my prior knowledge is severely lacking and the amount of scholarly literature is negligible and in a foreign language. This was particularly the case with my attempts to look into ancient North African religious practices. Works in English are few and far between and usually uninspiring. Those in German and French are much better, and thankfully my university had access to some, but the field is plagued by inconsistencies and disagreement, which I felt ill-qualified to comment on. This is one reason why the team is actively seeking a historian with reasonable knowledge on Ancient North Africa in general and Ancient Numidia in particular.

Aside from that, coming up with detailed ideas for how to make the mod even more realistic and historically accurate, only to be told, ‘that is not possible’ by coders and the like. Though this has not, thankfully, happened to me often…

EB II:What is it about the Romans that intrigues you so much?

A standard question, but one that is difficult to answer.

I have always, as long as I can remember, had an interest in the Roman History and Classical mythology. This may, partially, be the product of growing up in Chester, ancient Deva, and thus being surrounded by archaeological relics from the period in my formative years. That doesn’t really explain it, however, and whence my interest stems is likely to remain unknown.

The question is what is intriguing about the Romani. Again, unfortunately I do not have an easy answer. There is something enticing in mechanisms that allowed such a fractious elite to conquer most of the known world, hence my research focus on the political and institutional history of the Late Republic. In the end, as unsatisfying as it may be, I genuinely do not know…

EB II:Why did you decide to help the EBII project?

In 2011 approaching my final semester of undergraduate study, knowing that I would have a reduced workload and having a strong interest in the project I got in contact with the team. My motivation was primarily to assist the team in getting the mod finished in as short a time-frame as possible, and I felt that my research skills would both benefit the team and be improved by shifting outside the narrow confines of Late Republican and Triumviral socio-political history.

I do not feel that I have expressed this well so, in summary: I felt like I would be a benefit to the team; I had a sudden increase in the amount of free time I had; I wanted a first release to be forthcoming as soon as possible.

EB II:What faction(s) are you looking forward to playing the most upon release?

The Romani obviously, also the Bosporan Kingdom. Otherwise the Parthians and Baktria – I can be a little taken in by the Late Republican/Early Imperial rhetoric on the allure of the East.

EB II:Are there any surprises in your work we have not yet been told about?

There definitely will be some surprises: since most have not been confirmed or fully integrated I cannot be too specific at this stage. While I am aware that this probably isn’t new, I can confirm that it will be much harder for the Romani player to retain control of Italia – due largely to the plethora of different grades of citizenship.

Similarly I can confirm that the Bosporan Kingdom will have a dual nature – two separate lines of administrative development dependent on the presence or absence of nomadic lifestyles. More than any other faction it will be equipped to dominate both steppe and settled regions.

EB II:Can you give us any ideas about how the Bosporan Greeks will differ from other Hellenic factions?

The Bosporan Kingdom is an intriguing prospect. Historically, it began as a league of small poleis, but the dominance of Pantikapaion’s ruling dynasty, first the Archaeanaktids, then the Spartokids, resulted in the growth of a proto-Hellenistic kingdom. Indeed, in some ways it can be considered a fore-runner to the kingdoms of the Diadokhoi. Due to its limited geographic extent, however, the Bosporan Kingdom never developed as complex a politico-administrative system, instead relying almost exclusively on familial and marital ties to produce its leaders. As such, it will, initially, be more difficult for the Basileus to assert his authority, than for other Hellenistic factions, though eventually, the faction will evolve into a fully operational Hellenistic state.

Most fundamentally, the Bosporan Kingdom differs from other factions in its liminal status. The northern littoral of the Black Sea was a place of interaction between steppe and Hellenic cultures. Military, political and cultural developments in the Bosporan Kingdom were tied to its location. Due to this, the Bosporan faction has both a greater steppe influence on its building tree and unit roster, but, more importantly, has a specific line of ‘government’ options for steppe provinces, greatly increasing its chances, compared to other settled factions, of controlling ‘nomadic’ regions.

EB II:What will be the diplomatic starting positions for the Romani and Bosporan Greeks in EB II?

On the diplomatic front the Romani starting position remains unchanged from EB I. With the Bosporan Kingdom, however, there was a dilemma: there is very little evidence which could enlighten us as to the exact state of affairs in 272 BCE. While we know that the Spartokids cultivated a strong relationship with Athens in the 4th Century, and received an embassy from the Ptolemaic Kingdom in ~254 BCE, nothing is certain. With regard to relationships with their nomadic neighbours, it is nearly impossible to determine a satisfactory timeline as to the periods of conflict and peace.

Arguments ex silentio are never particularly strong, but in this case we have little choice. Given the absence of explicit evidence stating that the relationship with Athens had broken down, the Bosporan Kingdom will be allied with the Koinon Hellenon at the start date. Going on, with no source claiming that there was conflict on a large scale between the Bosporans and nomadic tribes during the reign of Paerisades II (284-245 BCE), it has been decided that the Bosporan Kingdom will not be at war with the Sauromatae. Finally, since the first contact we know of between the Ptolemies and the Spartokids is in 254 BCE, there will not be any diplomatic relationship in place in 272. So in summary, the Romani are unchanged, while the Bosporan Kingdom will be allied with the Koinon Hellenon.

EB II:One recurring problem in EB was that the Romans tended to expand north at the start of the game, very rarely did they engage in war with the Carthaginians or perform naval invasions of North Africa. Are we more likely to see a Punic war(s) in EBII?

Given my limited understanding of how AI systems operate I cannot be definitive, but in my experience with the MII:TW engine both naval invasions and diplomacy are much improved from RTW. As such should Rome find itself at war with Kart-Hadast in EB II I think it likely that a full-blown naval war will result, and that control of the sea will define its result.

EB II:Do you ever have trouble with the Celtic historians?

Generally not – though they tend to ask odd questions.

EB II:Do you have any hopes or fears for the project?

I hope that the mod will fulfil all the expectations of its loyal fans, having been released in a timely fashion.

I fear that it may fail to meet my own, and the team’s standards and fail to meet the expectations of our loyal fans…

Velho: That How Roman Reforms Are implented, Like what is needed to them and how you will see it when playing.

Velho – firstly, though I fear my answer will disappoint you, I cannot confirm the exact requirements and effects of the reforms at this stage, though I will try and give you some information and a small justification.

As mentioned above, though I am nominally in charge of the Romani, my focus over the last six to eight months has been elsewhere, either on the Bosporan Kingdom or on more general matters. The reason for this is that, in pushing for a first release, focus has to shift away from those factions which have had much work put into them towards those which have had very little work done. Before I joined the team in any capacity there were a number of historians who have done an admirable job in researching, writing on and coding for the Romani, though sadly most are no longer able to contribute on a full-time basis. As such my own input into the faction is, at this stage, limited – before a first release I will be combing over everything in order to test current ideas against my own, utilising our coders’ knowledge to push the boundaries as much as possible.

Having said this: in terms of requirements I believe EB II’s Romani reforms will be broadly similar in scope to those of EB I. That is to say that the Polybian reforms will be temporally limited and dependent upon territory gained, though possibly also battles fought against various opponents. Again, Marian reforms will be restricted by time to later in the game, and will require a character with particular traits as a trigger. Given the presence of multiple citizenship levels, my own plans are ambitious – encompassing a period of change rather than an instant ‘reform’ – but, as everyone is aware, ambitious plans are always limited by the engine. Finally, the Augustan reforms will have long-term requirements and traits.

Regarding how they will affect gameplay, it is obvious that they will allow reformed units to be recruited, though at this stage a first release will, unfortunately, only include Camillan units. I’m sure your focus is largely on what changes fall outside of this. Again, these things are not finalised, but, with various grades of citizenship the reforms will impact upon the attitude of subjects to Rome and to their own governance, as well as affecting what types of administration are available. It is also likely that they will affect what policies can be implemented (in the form of buildings), for example whether the player will be allowed to effect land reform packages.

cahtush: What kind of scripted events can we expect to see for the romani?

The same response applies as above – things are work in progress and subject to change. I must also state that I am not a fan of prescriptive history: the idea behind EB II is that the player has the liberty to change history and go one’s own way. There will be no ‘scripted’ Hannibalic invasion of Italy for instance. That said, certain trends are obvious in the development of the Roman polity and can be seen as significant, though not inevitable, changes. As such, though events may not occur in every game, there will a number of events which may occur.

Brennus has already revealed the ‘Arvernian revolt’ event which will have, hopefully, a significant impact on any unwary Romani player. In a similar way I hope to simulate a Social War, should the satisfaction of the socii drop below a certain level.

Evocata: What (If any) significant new or different historical sources/elements have been taken into account in comparison to EB1?

An excellent question, Evocata – I can only really answer with regard to the Romani, as the Bosporan Kingdom was not included in EB I. As far as I am aware there has not been any significant change in the methods used to research the Romani between EB I and II. The written sources are, of course, relatively static and the team was very thorough at the first time of asking. Given my own research into the institutional and political history of the Republic there will likely be some shift in emphasis. The broader scope offered by the MII:TW engine also plays a role here. So, unlike in EB I, maintaining order in Italy will be much harder, especially as the game develops. Similarly, internal disorder brought about by political and social conflict will be much more likely to strike those regions granted some sort of citizenship and hence a stake in the development of the Republic.

Stath's: Are you pleased with the amount and quality of character traits that the team created for the Roman generals and politicians? Are there going to be surprises in this domain?

Once again, exactitudes are not possible to this stage, but it is likely that there will be multiple surprises. I am highly motivated to provide as great an insight into the world of the Roman political class as possible and traits are the most obvious way of doing this. The models used to portray offices, triumphs and governorships in EB I will be retained and hopefully improved. Similarly, I would hope that a much wider range of traits reflecting political and philosophical views would be included within realistic bounds. So yes, I am satisfied with the progress in this area, but with regard to traits and ancillaries, more yields a more immersive experience, and so is usually better…

*****************************************************

We hoped you enjoyed that. Next time we will be interviewing Haithabas one of our 2D and 3D artists; responsible for many of the lovely units which have been previewed as well as many of the 2D icons you will use in the campaign screen.