Countdown to Open Beta - Eleutheroi

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

Fair enough. What about Spain? Having 4 Barbarian factions would just be overkill. There are alot better factions that could be represented. (Although in my opinion, Gauls and Germans are more than enough).

Having 4 successor states is overkill. Macedonia and Greek cities are more than enough.

[eadingas]

Dude, the name is Europa Barbarorum. Just be happy we didn't ditch the hellenic ones in favour of more barbarians (Gods know I'd want it :)

[TheTank]

Gee, I guess I was hoping for a fun representation of Warfare in Antiquity instead of a Barbarian-Fest. I mean, the skins are nice, but there's little difference between all these Barbarian factions, tactics-wise, aside from your starting place.

The Hellenic factions are also very much the same for my point of view .....
Lots of Pikemen and Hoplites....
The only interesting Hellenic faction for me is Bactria or maybe the Greeks..
My opinion is that that the barbarian factions are more diverse.
Did you see the Aedui and Sweboz preview?!
I think that these factions are very different!!
The Gauls have chariots,heavy swordsmen, Pikemen etc and the Germanics lots of framea equipped light troops and light swordsmen, light horse units and axemen etc..
The gauls have a very balanced army and the germanics are more guerilla oriented army.
If EB is out i will start with the Aedui faction first but germania or Iberia are my second choice.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

The Hellenic factions are also very much the same for my point of view .....
Lots of Pikemen and Hoplites....
The Hellenic factions are also very much the same for my point of view .....
Lots of Pikemen and Hoplites....
The only interesting Hellenic faction for me is Bactria or maybe the Greeks..
My opinion is that that the barbarian factions are more diverse.

I was going to say same but you were faster.
And what comes to barbarian factions I agreed whit you.

[The_Mark]

Well, most of the Hellenic factions are successor states, and as such they succeeded the Macedonian way of fighting, centered around the phalanx. Still, they will have access to different types of units and regional units, so they will also have some diversity.

Sure the "barbarians" will be diverse, Iberians did fight a bit differently than Germans or Sarmatians.

My english is poor but I bet it is much better than your finnish

- Olekkos varma?
Paljonko sää sitä vetoa lyöt?

[TheTank]

Cool update but I really want to see Iberian or a Thracian faction.
Question:
Does EB also includes Proto Finnic, Baltic and Slavic rebels ?!
That will be cool.
If they exist I really like to see them :-)

[eadingas]

Cool update but I really want to see Iberian or a Thracian faction.
Question:
Does EB also includes Proto Finnic, Baltic and Slavic rebels ?!
That will be cool.
If they exist I really like to see them :-)

Proto Finnic and proto-Baltic yes, slavic no (too early), but maybe proto-slavic.
They're not skinned yet, but apart from that, they're almost ready.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

- Olekkos varma?
Paljonko sää sitä vetoa lyöt?

Et osannu kirjottaa tuotakkaan kirjakielellä, että voin lyödäkki.

Gelatinous Cube, looks like EB isn't for you, try RTR. It focuses to civilised factions.

[asilv]

So what factions you would like to see in EB Gelatinous Cube? If all barbarians were replaced by rebels as you suggested there would be about 10 faction slots free(depending on your definion of barbarian). I don't think there are enough significant "civilized" factions.

[offtopic]

Et osannu kirjottaa tuotakkaan kirjakielellä, että voin lyödäkki.

Helvetin sosiaaliteinit

Sosiaaliteinit? Mitäs ne on? Sosiaalitanttojen esiasteita?
[/offtopic]
Maybe we barbarians should move this discusson to the talk your own language thread...

[eadingas]

Gee, I guess I was hoping for a fun representation of Warfare in Antiquity instead of a Barbarian-Fest. I mean, the skins are nice, but there's little difference between all these Barbarian factions, tactics-wise, aside from your starting place.

Eh... how do you know? Have you played EB? Or are you basing your knowledge of "barbarian" tactics on vanilla RTW and hollywood movies?
There is much more diversity among the barbarians than among the hellenics. Hell, all the Mediterranean factions fight pretty much the same way.

[Zero1]

Gee, I guess I was hoping for a fun representation of Warfare in Antiquity instead of a Barbarian-Fest. I mean, the skins are nice, but there's little difference between all these Barbarian factions, tactics-wise, aside from your starting place.

...Have you been paying attention to ANY of the past previews, seriously? any attention at all? Because if you were you would realize how idiotic that statement was.

[TheTank]

Nonsense..........

Do you think that the clashes between the romans against the Gauls, Germanics, Iberians etc where not important and easy for the romans?!!!!
It took the Romans centuries to subject the continental Celts and they lost against the germanic tribes......
If the germanics and gauls where not important why the Romans bother to try to conquer them????
The Iberian tribes and britons where also a big pain in the romans ass...

Finally The Iberians and Gauls where vital for the successes of Hannibal.

[Zero1]

I simply fail to see how having more Barbarians could do anything but make the game historically innacurate. The Successors, Rome, Carthage, and other "Civilized" states are the ones that should have the chance of ruling the world. The Barbarians are simply..Barbarians. While they aren't frothing at the mouth or any of that hollywood junk, they are still left behind. They should be an obstacle that civilized factions have to overcome--a role that can be filled by rebels, easily. On the other hand, the Civilized Factions are historically more dynamic in the way of trade, politics, ect. and cannot be represented so easily by Rebel factions.

My point is, having too many Barbarian factions shifts the focus too far from where the action of the era really was.

That stems from the common mis-conception that the "Barbarians" as the Greeks and Romans called them were a bunch of rabid morons. I'm sorry but the Celts and even Germanics were in many ways just as if not "more" cultured then the so called "civilized" peoples.

They were generally *cleaner* "yes I'm sorry the mythical big dirty hulking stinking barbarian is nothing more then just that a "MYTH" ", had more upstanding morale principles and had fully established societies and ways of doing things.

They werent just "rebels" why are we all so quick to forget the Gauls COULD have destroyed Rome if they had the chance, they werent a bunch of naked fools running around but a well oiled and effective military force!

The only reason Ceasar had as much success as he did in Gaul was due to its rapid decline, ergo. It was given to infighting, it had splintered into various factions, its military had shrunk considerably etc. etc. In essence it was but a fraction of it's former might.

Basically what your saying sounds like is that its "historically innacurate" to be able to revive a dying power or support an underdog, from that train of thought it would also be "historically innacurate" to include such factions as Pontus or Parthia.

Its generally a good idea to know what your talking about when you speak friend, otherwise you end up with your foot in your mouth.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The only reason Ceasar had as much success as he did in Gaul was due to its rapid decline, ergo.

You discredit your own argument when you say that the *only* reason he had that much success was etc., etc.

[Little Legioner]

What about Latin rebels such as Samnites or Campanians?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

the special rebel units look brilliant its just a pity about the faction number limit, it would have been great to have had loads of tiny factions, rebels just seem to wander around or sit about for years.