Countdown to Open Beta - Eleutheroi

**eadingas** · 06-22-2005, 12:43

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** · 06-22-2005, 21:04

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 06-22-2005, 21:46

Originally Posted by TheTank

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** · 06-22-2005, 22:14

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** · 06-22-2005, 22:22

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** · 06-23-2005, 10:02

Originally Posted by 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 :-)

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** · 06-23-2005, 12:40

Originally Posted by The_Mark

- 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** · 06-23-2005, 13:18

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]

Originally Posted by Kääpäkorven Konsuli

Et osannu kirjottaa tuotakkaan kirjakielellä, että voin lyödäkki.

Originally Posted by Kääpäkorven Konsuli's sig

Helvetin sosiaaliteinit

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

**Kääpäkorven Konsuli** · 06-23-2005, 13:30

Originally Posted by Silvouz

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

[offtopic]
- Vittu vähäx mä asun korvessa, vittu täällä ei o mitään, vittu kaikki kaveritki asuu kilometrin päässää...
Elikkä sosiaalisesti riippuvaisia teinejä

Mitä ne Sosiaalitantot sitten on?
[/offtopic]

**Ranika** · 06-23-2005, 13:56

Ah, if you worry we have a bias in favor of barbarians, please, don't worry. We have many very good Hellenic historians and great 'fans' of Hellenic civilizations. Everyone is being done as much justice as we can do them (given the constraints). Our concern is not 'non-conformity' so much as it is simply enlightening the conformed sense. 'Civilized' peoples WERE civilized, and we reflect that. They're being given as much care as barbarians (and in some cases, more, simply because we have the resources in terms of manpower to do them well). However, we want realistic barbarians. The CA portrayal has them all pretty much the same, and it wasn't like that at all. The tribes of Celts were more like feudal estates of the middle ages; they weren't all just indepedent tribesmen duking it out. Many paid homage to kings in other tribes, and formed large kingdoms that encompassed many tribes. However, there is a stigma that comes with using the word 'tribe', it brings to mind purely indepedent wild tribes with no central authority; to the contrary, one of the great things about this period in terms of Celts (that I wish RTW could do for us) would be the civil war of Gaul. The Aedui, who had come to power as the dominate tribe (tribes in Gaul were more like later noble houses, vying for control of the dominion). However, they poorly handled an invasion of the Belgae and Germanic incursions had overwhelmed their eastern most lands. As such, their subservient tribes grew restless and lost faith in Aedui leadership. The most powerful, the Arverni, brought several tribes under their banner in a large rebellion. Other tribes just outright flouted the rule of the Aedui. The Aedui, in the end, had only a few tribes that remained loyal, though they reincorporated many. Gaul wasn't a wild free-for-all, it was a splintered kingdom with a very complicated political situation. Imitating the war between the Aedui and their loyal tribes, and the Arverni and their dissident tribes, would be quite a bit of epic feel. The Romans largely exploited this conflict, as well as German invasions, to conquer Gaul. The Romans notably don't often fight actual Gallic armies; they don't have to. The Gauls were killing eachother and fighting the Germans, and simply spent themselves upon one another. This is only an example of political machinations of barbarian states; if you started replacing names, but kept the events, that could easily sound like the events that destroyed a number of states. However, we only imitate what we can within our constraints. Greece and Italy are going to be well fleshed out, as is the east. Our goal isn't to play favorites at all (despite some naysayers, who are more or less just whining and have no idea what we're actually doing; they see a faction they don't like has anything good, and then they get upset), but to give historical balances, disadvantages, and advantages. That isn't just in terms of units and buildings, though that is present (the Britons, for example, have little in the way of cavalry, but have good chariots, and many different soldiers based on different tribes, particularly many skirmishers and light infantry, giving them a variety to select from, as opposed to Gauls, who have a more even mix of decent cavalry, weaker chariots, good (and more) shock infantry, and some different tribal regionals, making both factions play quite differently, despite their relations). Starting position, and current relations with neighbors can heavily affect how easy or difficult a faction is to play. 'Balance' is wholely secondary to reality. If faction X starts at war with factions Y and Z, and that makes it very difficult to play faction X, we won't change it anyway, if it's historically accurate. Some factions start with only one province; advantageous in that it's easy to manage, but disadvantageous because it leaves little room for failure, and offers little in resources. The Britons start with one province; however, Britain is a rich place, and that is an advantage for the Britons, as they expand into their immediate surroundings, though the 'rebel' tribes will be hard to subdue; they had the same advantage of much local wealth, general good health, and could afford strong forces. The Germans also start with one province, but it's poor, and immediate expansion is necessary to fund a decent army. Again, nearby tribes suffered from similar problems. The idea is to make the regions realistic, and keep the AI acting in a similar method to the actual people, but allow a good human player the ability to expand, though, in some cases more than others, it will purposely be difficult to sustain a faction at first.

**eadingas** · 06-22-2005, 21:41

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 06-22-2005, 22:28

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 06-23-2005, 00:05

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** · 06-23-2005, 01:05

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.