Countdown to Open Beta - Eleutheroi

[Greek_fire19]

Yeah, I read the greek sounding name and thought aaah. Another successor state. But yes, excellent work, of course.

[Idomeneas]

The Eleutheroi are the rebels. Eleutheroi is Greek for 'independents'. :]



~Wiz

it means free (people)

[GoreBag]

midlander Britons (like Manawydans)

That's an odd name. Isn't Manawydan a mythic figure?

[Ranika]

Yes, Manawydan in legendary sources is the god of the sea, and specifically the isle of Mann. However, in Gaelic sources, the pre-Gaelic Manx are called (when anglicized) the 'Men of Manawydan (the god)', or just 'Manawydans' for short.

[Viking]

This was something new; Eleutheroi.

I liked the faction name as simple as Rebels and then subfaction names like Helvetii. But this name was cool as well

[Spendios]

Very good work as always even the rebels will have nice armies .

[Stormy]

There are more rebels in stock, ladies and gentlemen. Just relax, with time it shall come.





I like all of our factions, if you ask me.

[GoreBag]

Yes, Manawydan in legendary sources is the god of the sea, and specifically the isle of Mann. However, in Gaelic sources, the pre-Gaelic Manx are called (when anglicized) the 'Men of Manawydan (the god)', or just 'Manawydans' for short.

'Cause Knowledge is Power. Thank you kindly, Ranika; I didn't draw the Manx conclusion.

[Ranika]

A surprising amount of people don't, even many who you'd expect would. I guess it comes from trying to disassociate history and legends, but that often causes one to forget they always intersect at some point. In this cause, the Mannanatagh/Mannananaght (Men of Manawydan/Manawydan Men) were just the pre-Gaelic Manx, and were closer to midland Britons than they were anyone else for a period. Actually somewhat irritated me in Viking Invasion. The Manx rebels, they had all 'Welsh' names, even though the Manx, by that point, had many many Gaelic names.

[Colovion]

The Eleutheroi are the rebels. Eleutheroi is Greek for 'independents'. :]



~Wiz

YES!

I am filled with happiness.

[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.

[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.

[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 :-)

[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.

[Steppe Merc]

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

I should not respond, but I must. None of our factions were barbarians. The so called barbarians were very advanced, in many ways more so then your precious civilized states, especially militarily.
And we are about history. And so called barbarians were just as important as any Romans. We are not about holloywood, and lies about the savagery of non Latins and Greeks.
And many of your so called barbarians had great power, and may well have gotten it if some things had been different. Gauls sacked Rome, and did very well against Greeks. Parthians had a very rich and powerful empire. Perhaps you should find out about so called barbarians before discrediting them, and a bit more about your "civilized" peoples many failures.

[metatron]

No 'Temple in Jerusalem'? Have it give a great law & order bonus, and make Judea a very rebellious province. Make it destructable above all else.

Keeping it keeps the people from revolting, but it hinders assimilation.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

This is the great thing about this mod: we've got people who really know a lot about *all* these different factions and cultures. It's not like it's a trade-off. We will have them all well represented. In fact, I personally hope everyone uses the new renderings of the factions to totally destroy the factions they hate in particular. Hate barbs? Drive them into the ground with your phalangites and heavy cav. Detest greeks? Make them run and weep before your legions. Abhor the Romans? Destroy their capital and turn it into an open field or at least a site of your grandest harem. Yipppeeee!

[Reverend Joe]

Why, why, WHY does EVERYTHING have to be an argument with you people?! And don't say "because so-and-so is an idiot and knows nothing about history", because by perpetuating the argument, you are just as idiotic. I mean, I can understand the occasional venting of frustration- and Gelationus Cube's comment was somewhat uncalled-for- but by refusing to let it go, you're just perpetuating a situation that everyone else is bored to death by.

So please, for the sake of everyone else here, DROP IT.

Edit: I looked again, and it looks like this argument just ended. So let's please keep it that way.

[O_Stratigos]

Why, why, WHY does EVERYTHING have to be an argument with you people?! And don't say "because so-and-so is an idiot and knows nothing about history", because by perpetuating the argument, you are just as idiotic. I mean, I can understand the occasional venting of frustration- and Gelationus Cube's comment was somewhat uncalled-for- but by refusing to let it go, you're just perpetuating a situation that everyone else is bored to death by.

IMHO, in forums two of the socially acceptable-polite rules are:

Rule#1: Unless you have something to contribute to the thread, don’t say anything.
Rule#2: Since there is no compulsory reading or replying, see Rule#1

O_Stratigos

[Byzantine Mercenary]

weren't the romans referred to as barbarians by the greeks?

[Colovion]

weren't the romans referred to as barbarians by the greeks and cartheginians?

fixed

[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.

[jerby]

weren't the romans referred to as barbarians by the greeks?

...

greek were happy to clal anything non-greek barbarains. just like romans Called anythign non-roman barbarians. The persians called greeks/macedonians barbarians. Everybody called everybody else a barbarian...

only the Aedui and Sweboz, they didnt give a damn. (just kidding, i dont know a flying X about west-european tribes/factions/people)

what one people called another is irrelevant. we (not me, EB )should look at their own documents and make up our own mind, some parts of Livy might be usefull, but a lot of it is biased.

[Moros]

Didn't babarians mean foreign people/strangers at first?
I'm not sure put I think I've picked this up somewhere a time ago.

[Ranika]

The concept of 'barbarian hordes skirting across Europe' isn't farfetched. The Celts were at one point empire builders. Gaul once had a single king (the Biturix; world king); the collapse internally led to infighting not unlike the civil wars of mediterranean kingdoms and empires. A successfully united Gaul trying to conquer huge portions of land is hardly farfetched; it would just be the Celts trying to reclaim what they percieved as theirs. The 'Briton' faction is a remnant of Gaul in Britain (southern Britain would have been included in the Biturges controlled regions, and would have been considered, by Gauls, part of Gaul). Their amibitions were likely the same (considering they commanded the entire host of Britain south of Brigantes territory when Flavius Julius invaded, they were clearly expansionists). Compare them to some of the Hellenic states. City states and the like. What did they accomplish that made them 'more' than the barbarians in this period? And the barbarians weren't all 'on the fringes' trying to hold off the advance of the civilized world. The Dacians certainly weren't just 'resisting' expansion by civilized nations. They built a kingdom, and were a genuine threat to those around them. The Germans were absolutely not just resisting invasion; it was Germans that descended on Rome out of period, and in period were an expansionistic threat to their surrounding civilizations. To the contrary of your point, the barbarians DIDN'T lose, they won. Hugely. Where is the Roman Empire? And why is most modern law of western origin based just as much on Celto-Saxon legal systems as it is Greek systems? The point is though, barbarians weren't just sidelines to the events of the mediteranean, they had their own politics (one of the main reasons to include the Britons is probably their profound connection to the mainland Gauls of the Aedui, not because of their effect on the med, even though they traded tin with Carthage and the Hellenic nations) and concerns. We don't pick civilizations based on just their interaction with Hellenes and Romans and Carthaginians, but on their interaction with eachother, and to what extent. If a faction, in this period, only interacted with the other barbarian factions, it'd still be a valid faction to consider, since they would be a real, major element in their politics; we selected the most major players in the barbarian world. The world was much larger than the sea, and we want, not just warfare, but appropriate political situations.

This whole thing is not meant as a slight, but simply the unnecessity of such an argument; we would love to include more factions. It'd be great to have every city state. However, we won't ignore major powers that the mediterranean would consider marginal because they weren't in their direct sphere of events. We had considered many powers. Pergamon (one I would personally love to see) was considered, as were a number of barbarian powers. Everything was weighed in terms of accomplishment, and importance in their region of the world. The Britons were major traders, and would've been important in the Celtic world. So were the Goidils. However, the Casses expanded more (Goidils only took the isle of Mann and set up some coastal forts in Britain in this period) and also were important outside of the Celtic world, since they controlled great deals of tin trade. They weren't ancillaries to events, they controlled some. They'll be reflected in an appropriate way too; many trade goods in Britain will ensure that trade relations with Britons would be valuable, as they actually were. It's not something we can imitate with rebels. We did explore using their space for other factions, but all of them barbarians (including, briefly, Galatians, but their contribution was very ancillary in this period; mercenaries and retainers more than anything).