Max number of factions

[Optimate]

Which is the maximum number of factions allowed in R:TW?

[khelvan]

21, including the senate and slave factions.

[Optimate]

Ohh. I was of the impression EB was going to have lots and lots of factions. Too bad.

[Steppe Merc]

Well, we'd all love lots and lots of factions. It's just that we don't have much of a choice.

[Stormy]

Stupid question coming from me but not even with R:TW with BI ?

[Steppe Merc]

We have no proof whether or not BI is using new faction slots, or just renaming old ones.

[Vercingetorix]

I think I remember reading that there were no new faction slots...

[amritochates]

I would beg to differ- BI actually frees up 3 extra faction slots.

Even assuming that the 21 faction limit is still in place, which seems highly unlikely given our previous experience with MTW and MTW-VI, where the VI expansion allowed one to add new factions compared to the previously hard coded faction Limit in vanilla MTW(21), since the the senate is no longer a faction in BI we can now condense the previous four Roman factions(the Senate, the Julii, the Brutii and the Scipii) into a singular generic roman faction thus freeing up 3 extra faction slots.

These three slots then can be used for more deserving factions- Mauryans(sotto voce) or even the numidians to name two, since Bartix is naturally a certainity.

I had previously also commented on the desirability of basing the EB2.0 mod on BI.

The implications of a future EB Mod that will be based on the BI engine, a mod that will combine religion, loyalty, barabrian migrations, recruitable generals, civil wars, rebellions,night battles, troops that can swim and best of all even if the no. of Factions remain hardcoded, 3 new faction slots- "Mauryans" (sotto voice) any one or maybe even BARTIX and all this along with the sheer genius that the EB developers have demonstrated so far is awe inspiring to say the least.

[GoreBag]

We'll have to wait and see.

[Divinus Arma]

I would beg to differ- BI actually frees up 3 extra faction slots.

Even assuming that the 21 faction limit is still in place, which seems highly unlikely given our previous experience with MTW and MTW-VI, where the VI expansion allowed one to add new factions compared to the previously hard coded faction Limit in vanilla MTW(21), since the the senate is no longer a faction in BI we can now condense the previous four Roman factions(the Senate, the Julii, the Brutii and the Scipii) into a singular generic roman faction thus freeing up 3 extra faction slots.

[/I]

Yes, the Senate might have to remain, but how do you know whether or not there will be three roman family factions?

I seriously doubt they would leave 3 family factions. Look at RTR 6.0. They got rid of all of 'em. And many of the guys from RTR also work with EB.

[caesar44]

RTR 6 moders managed to "make" another "faction" , the Galatians , how ? They just put instead of rebels a Ceitic town in the province of Galatia in Asia minor . the Galatians are acting like a true new faction .

[Divinus Arma]

RTR 6 moders managed to "make" another "faction" , the Galatians , how ? They just put instead of rebels a Ceitic town in the province of Galatia in Asia minor . the Galatians are acting like a true new faction .

Not quite what I meant... but I see your point.

[khelvan]

I would beg to differ- BI actually frees up 3 extra faction slots.

Even assuming that the 21 faction limit is still in place, which seems highly unlikely given our previous experience with MTW and MTW-VI, where the VI expansion allowed one to add new factions compared to the previously hard coded faction Limit in vanilla MTW(21), since the the senate is no longer a faction in BI we can now condense the previous four Roman factions(the Senate, the Julii, the Brutii and the Scipii) into a singular generic roman faction thus freeing up 3 extra faction slots.

No it does not. The stated number of factions in BI is 17. This implies that they have not "condensed" anything, they've simply not used the existing four Roman factions at all. So everything stays exactly as it is today, except they have just "turned off" those four factions. The senate is still a "faction," it is just removed, much in the way modders can remove it now.

I don't see how this helps us in the least. It is simply more of the same.

RTR 6 moders managed to "make" another "faction" , the Galatians , how ? They just put instead of rebels a Ceitic town in the province of Galatia in Asia minor . the Galatians are acting like a true new faction .

No they haven't. They simply gave the Galatian province to their Gallic faction. It doesn't act like a new faction, it acts like part of Gaul, because that is exactly what it is. It is just spread across a larger area.

We could give the Casse a province in Arabia, but that would not mean we now have a Sabaean faction. We just have a Casse faction with provinces in two different areas of the world. There is a WORLD of difference between what you are suggesting and the reality of the situation.

[caesar44]

No they haven't. They simply gave the Galatian province to their Gallic faction.

I have said that .

It doesn't act like a new faction, it acts like part of Gaul, because that is exactly what it is. It is just spread across a larger area.

Yes it does , how ? Because of the distance between Galia and Asia minor . It the Celts are at war with the "Iberians" , it got nothing with the Galatians .

We could give the Casse a province in Arabia, but that would not mean we now have a Sabaean faction. We just have a Casse faction with provinces in two different areas of the world.

No , because the Casse are Britons not Arabs !!! but Celts are Celts , in Galia and in Asia minor .

There is a WORLD of difference between what you are suggesting and the reality of the situation.

Agreed ! but I have never deniled (sp) it...

[amritochates]

I seriously doubt they would leave 3 family factions. Look at RTR 6.0. They got rid of all of 'em. And many of the guys from RTR also work with EB.

I don't know what to say- so I will explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. In vanilla RTW it is an hardcoded requirement of the game that the senate and the three roman factions be allied at the beginning of the game. This implies that any set of four factions using this set up wil be necessarily be allied, which limits its usage.

RTR deals with this problem the only way they can which is to delete these 4 factions and allow only 17 playable factions which is what CA itself is doing in BI.

So what you have proposed is simply ludricious, since EB has consistently affirmed its independence from any other RTW mod and has till date never indicated that it uses any less than the 21 allowed factions.

[khelvan]

It doesn't act like a new faction, it acts like part of Gaul, because that is exactly what it is. It is just spread across a larger area.

Yes it does , how ? Because of the distance between Galia and Asia minor . It the Celts are at war with the "Iberians" , it got nothing with the Galatians .

It is still the same faction, benefitting from both areas' trade, income, and so on and so forth. It absolutely does not, in any way, act like a separate faction. It acts like the same faction with a province separated by land.

Not a mini-faction, not a semi-faction, the exact same faction.

We could give the Casse a province in Arabia, but that would not mean we now have a Sabaean faction. We just have a Casse faction with provinces in two different areas of the world.

No , because the Casse are Britons not Arabs !!! but Celts are Celts , in Galia and in Asia minor .

Celts are Celts? Is that like Greeks are Greeks? With this rationale, all of the British Isles, most of Western Europe including northern Iberia, bits of Eastern Europe, and bits of Asia Minor would all be under the same faction. Why stop with Galatia? Make the entire culture one faction, since people of the same culture are all the same, right?

In fact, why don't we just merge the Seleucids, Egypt, Greece, and the other Hellenic factions? I mean if people of the same culture are all the same, we might as well not split up the factions, right? Let's reunite Alexander's empire, at the very least, since they share the same culture.

This is not argument to absurdity. "Celts" are not "Celts" any more than "Greeks" are "Greeks," literally. "Celts" share culture, they are not a united people, any more than "Greeks" are, or people of the "Hellenic" culture; we would never do this (and we make no comment on any other mod's choice in this respect, but rather our own reasoning) because giving Galatia to Gaul is exactly equivalent to giving the Seleucid empire to the control of Macedonia. Sharing cultures, one nation having been borne of another's conquest and migration, but no longer under their control, with their own leadership, aims, goals, and so on and so forth. The Galatians were as independent and removed from the Gauls as the Seleucids were from the Macedonians.

Sorry, but this makes absolutely, utterly no sense for EB.

Yes, the Senate might have to remain, but how do you know whether or not there will be three roman family factions?

I seriously doubt they would leave 3 family factions. Look at RTR 6.0. They got rid of all of 'em. And many of the guys from RTR also work with EB.

RTR is moving to add new factions with 7.0, they've already stated this. However, "many of the guys from RTR" do not work with EB. We have three ex-RTR members, myself, Simetrical, and Stuie (though he's inactive). There are no current RTR members on our team. We're completely separate mods.

We've already stated that there will be only one Roman faction, and even when we were debating what to do with the Roman factions, three patrician families were never part of that debate.

[Birka Viking]

I agree... ..Khelvan

[caesar44]

It is still the same faction, benefitting from both areas' trade, income, and so on and so forth. It absolutely does not, in any way, act like a separate faction. It acts like the same faction with a province separated by land.

Not a mini-faction, not a semi-faction, the exact same faction.

Celts are Celts? Is that like Greeks are Greeks? With this rationale, all of the British Isles, most of Western Europe including northern Iberia, bits of Eastern Europe, and bits of Asia Minor would all be under the same faction. Why stop with Galatia? Make the entire culture one faction, since people of the same culture are all the same, right?

In fact, why don't we just merge the Seleucids, Egypt, Greece, and the other Hellenic factions? I mean if people of the same culture are all the same, we might as well not split up the factions, right? Let's reunite Alexander's empire, at the very least, since they share the same culture.

This is not argument to absurdity. "Celts" are not "Celts" any more than "Greeks" are "Greeks," literally. "Celts" share culture, they are not a united people, any more than "Greeks" are, or people of the "Hellenic" culture; we would never do this (and we make no comment on any other mod's choice in this respect, but rather our own reasoning) because giving Galatia to Gaul is exactly equivalent to giving the Seleucid empire to the control of Macedonia. Sharing cultures, one nation having been borne of another's conquest and migration, but no longer under their control, with their own leadership, aims, goals, and so on and so forth. The Galatians were as independent and removed from the Gauls as the Seleucids were from the Macedonians.

Sorry, but this makes absolutely, utterly no sense for EB.

RTR is moving to add new factions with 7.0, they've already stated this. However, "many of the guys from RTR" do not work with EB. We have three ex-RTR members, myself, Simetrical, and Stuie (though he's inactive). There are no current RTR members on our team. We're completely separate mods.

We've already stated that there will be only one Roman faction, and even when we were debating what to do with the Roman factions, three patrician families were never part of that debate.

Just cool it dude !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't enjoy this anymore , you are definitly hate RTR so you are just attacking me because I mantioned them !

Do what you want to do...(my God...)

[eadingas]

Um... if anyone has to cool here is you... khelvan just answered your question quite thoroughly and in a more civil tone than your idea merits. Galatians and Gauls are not the same people, and they have very little in common, it would have nothing to do with historical accuracy to make them into the same faction.

[Geoffrey S]

Take it easy, ceaser44. You posted incorrect statements which were corrected by Khelvan in a civil manner. And bringing any kind of RTR vs. EB debate into this is frankly absurd.

Anyway, back to the factions thing. As was stated earlier BI will include only 17 factions, which probably means the old Roman factions have probably been removed and all other factions edited into new ones. Not only that, but it looks like the two Roman factions are also split into loyal and rebel versions, which may mean there are only 15 actual playable factions. Something of a backwards step if you ask me.

[Atheist_Peace]

Yeah he just hates RTR, thats all...


Or maybe, you were just completely and horribly wrong in what you said and khelvan refuted it because it made no sense.

[Meneldil]

Geoffrey S, a lot of factions are supposedly not playable in BI. I think there are only 11 playable factions. The other will emerge (or not) later, once the campaign has started.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=khelvan]

Celts are Celts? Is that like Greeks are Greeks? With this rationale, all of the British Isles, most of Western Europe including northern Iberia, bits of Eastern Europe, and bits of Asia Minor would all be under the same faction. Why stop with Galatia? Make the entire culture one faction, since people of the same culture are all the same, right?

In fact, why don't we just merge the Seleucids, Egypt, Greece, and the other Hellenic factions? I mean if people of the same culture are all the same, we might as well not split up the factions, right? Let's reunite Alexander's empire, at the very least, since they share the same culture.



Civil manner...
One could think we are talking here about real life...
Just mentioned (it was not a question) what RTR did and what I think of it and dear Khelvan is acting like he have all the knowledge in the world , so the next time when some one would say "the Celts are Barbarians" , he should expect what ?
My God , such sarcastic response , even I could do that , but for what , for the sake of a game...
Civil manner...

[Moros]

ohw let us al be freinds!

Nobody's mad on RTR, I bet Khelvan has also played RTR.
It's not a bad mod, EB is just best

and believe me I've played the closed Beta, you'll like it and it comes with some surprises!

[khelvan]

Just cool it dude !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't enjoy this anymore , you are definitly hate RTR so you are just attacking me because I mantioned them !

Do what you want to do...(my God...)

No, I'm posting in response to you because what you said makes no sense. I don't "hate RTR" and I'm not attacking you.

Don't make absurd statements and then get upset when someone calls you on them. I was slightly sarcastic in my post because saying "Celts are Celts" and then lumping Galatians in with all others is mildly to semi offensive.

Don't be upset because I exposed what you say is wrong. And don't change the subject, this has nothing to do with any other mod and everything to do with what you said.

So, let's recap:

1) The changes do not do what you suggest in the game.
2) The changes are not historically accurate.
3) You can't deflect my statments by playing the martyr.

I will get annoyed with you if you insist on playing the martyr with me. It is one of my pet peeves. Even more so if you insist on adding some angst with RTR that does not exist. I suggest you tone down that rhetoric.

Edit: And may I make a suggestion? If you think this, or the above post, were attacking you personally, I will simply suggest that you might want to try giving the person you are responding to the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping to the worst possible conclusion as to their motives. I am certainly not attacking you, but responding to what I consider an extremist statement with one designed to highlight how extremist the statement actually is. If you consider that an attack, I really can't help you; the problem lies in perception, not offered offense.

[caesar44]

[B][QUOTE=khelvan
you said makes no sense...
Don't make absurd statements...
mildly to semi offensive...
I exposed what you say is wrong
playing the martyr...
I will get annoyed with you if you insist on playing the martyr with me...
It is one of my pet peeves...
I suggest you tone down that rhetoric...
jumping to the worst possible conclusion as to their motives...
I consider an extremist statement...
how extremist the statement actually is...
I really can't help you...[/B]


1. Are you serious ?
2. Are we talking here about a game ?
3. How come that saying somthing about Galatians makes you so angry 2,000 years (ups sorry , sorry , ah ...yes .. gh. jff. hgf 2,030 years) after the end of their kingdom?
4. For the third time - my post was not a question , nor suggestion , just an anacdote (sp) with an opinion , it is allowed here , does it ?
5. I can make a suggestion ? Just remember , it is a game and many people already said it before to the EB moders
6. If you have read my previous posts you can see that I am all for accuracy !
7. This "Helienic union" is historical ? NO !! , but I am sure you know that...
8. One should play as Martyr (if he must) just to make some profit , what profit could I get from you , ha ?
9. Again , good luck with your holy work , and this is with out sarcasm .
10.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Gertgregoor]ohw let us al be freinds!

Agreed !

[Teleklos Archelaou]

7. This "Helienic union" is historical ? NO !! , but I am sure you know that...

You mean the "Koinon Hellenon"? That alliance based on the decree that we actually have copies of still today? Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't see how saying the faction as we depict it is ahistorical, as far as the restrictions of the game allow of course.

[Big_John]

TA, i think caesar means to imply that a pan-hellenic faction, ala khelvan's example of the seleucids and macedon, would be ahistorical. i'm guessing this is supposed to be in contrast to a pan-celtic faction, in which having galatians and gauls as one faction is somehow not ahistorical?

[khelvan]

3. How come that saying somthing about Galatians makes you so angry 2,000 years (ups sorry , sorry , ah ...yes .. gh. jff. hgf 2,030 years) after the end of their kingdom?

If I was really angry, you would know it. I made a mildly sarcastic comment and you reacted as though I shot your dog. I'm very sorry that you think I was attacking you.

4. For the third time - my post was not a question , nor suggestion , just an anacdote (sp) with an opinion , it is allowed here , does it ?

You stated your opinion, I stated mine. You posted that what another mod chose to do did certain things, as a fact. I corrected you.

5. I can make a suggestion ? Just remember , it is a game and many people already said it before to the EB moders

Do you have a point?

7. This "Helienic union" is historical ? NO !! , but I am sure you know that...

Then why would you think a "Celtic union" would be historical?

8. One should play as Martyr (if he must) just to make some profit , what profit could I get from you , ha ?

I don't know - if you don't get anything out of it, why are you doing it? You're reacting as though something I said was horrible.