History Questions?

[Ranika]

No, the Casse didn't, but they did conquer southern Britain and had a monopoly on tin trade in northern Europe, and controlled so much tin that traders as far as the middle east went to Britain to buy it cheaply (it was so cheap it offset the expense of the long trip and STILL saved them money). They also sheltered Gallic leaders and supposedly provided soldiers to Gallic revolts (which Caesar used as an excuse to invade Britain). They fought the Romans in the period when Caesar invaded, and at the time, controlled all of the south of Britain (and Cassivellaunius was recognized as 'king of Britain', though they called the Casse, at the time 'Catuvellauni', which is something like 'Kingdom/Land of Vellaunius').

They were selected in part because they are a trading power, and also because of their political importance to the Gauls. Like the Aedui and Arverni, the Casse were inheritors of Ambicatus's former great Gallic kingdom. They did not seem overtly interested in recreating it, though they did support the Aedui at times, suggesting that they were supporting the legitimate claimants. Further, they had the most advanced military in Britain, and British armies are unique enough that it would be hard to represent them as just some roving rebels; at the same time, remember that RTR once said that all Celts are basically the same, which is laughably false; many of them didn't even consider eachother the same people (though the Casse, Aedui, and Arverni did; they were all Gauls, as the southeast of Britain was Gallic).

[Fabolous]

at the same time, remember that RTR once said that all Celts are basically the same, which is laughably false

We didn't say that, and while I cannot speak for what every RTR team member says, they certaily shouldn't have said that, for it is indeed laughably false. The idea at making those provinces controlled by the gauls was gameplay based using the fact that they were both celts as our "historical backing." It was a bad choice which we quickly fixed.

I still stand by us removing the britons as a solid decsion. They didn't ever invaded the mainland to our knowledge, and factions that didn't invade can be potrayed as rebels, and I also believe that 19 factions can be found that are more historically important. However I do enjoy playing as the britons, and keeping a briton faction isn't a horrible way to go, as you say certain groups like EB's choice of the Casse did have political and economic impact.

[Spitful]

Now back to my questions...

[Ranika]

We didn't say that, and while I cannot speak for what every RTR team member says, they certaily shouldn't have said that, for it is indeed laughably false. The idea at making those provinces controlled by the gauls was gameplay based using the fact that they were both celts as our "historical backing." It was a bad choice which we quickly fixed.

I still stand by us removing the britons as a solid decsion. They didn't ever invaded the mainland to our knowledge, and factions that didn't invade can be potrayed as rebels, and I also believe that 19 factions can be found that are more historically important. However I do enjoy playing as the britons, and keeping a briton faction isn't a horrible way to go, as you say certain groups like EB's choice of the Casse did have political and economic impact.

I'm not saying it's a bad choice to remove them; I actually lobbied for a while in our private forums to maybe replace them with Belgae, but the Belgic invasions were mostly over, and while they had some neat unique aspects, they weren't really that different from Gauls, though they might have had something interesting, like an axe unit. More defending that it is also not a bad choice to keep them. They provide an interesting division of Ambicatus's old kingdom, with a lot of unique units (you'll see if you follow later releases; they have a lot to go in still), and there are just some really unique gameplay decisions with them. My personal favorite thing is the use of 'champions' (who have the legionary eagle trait) to offset the poor morale of other units (mostly the midland units); I've been looking into ways to do something similar with Gauls, but they were headed for a much more standardized army at the time. They're also not an ahistoric faction, just, some people probably won't get the same rush out of trying to build a trading power up (which is the idea; even most of their in-game goals after conquering the isles involve the capture of coastal regions, building a trade-empire).


Also, sorry to Spitful for derailment. This'll stop now.

Of Romans, there were funtidores, I believe they were called. Used a sling on a staff. There were also legions who were dedicated to fighting elephants, but I don't know much about them.

[Chester]

2. Does anyone know of any more minor kingdoms that although were considered too small to be included in EB proper had large amounts of contact with the Roman empire prior 14AD? (sorry if i just opened a can of worms)

Sorry to rob your thread. I figured it was a generic "ask a history question" deal.

You should check out this page https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...i_history.html

It gives you some missed factions. A couple other I know- A bunch of small celtic tribes ,lol, and the Numidians.

Thanks for the response, Ranika. I guess you could go 50/50 on wether to include them or not. It sucks that CA has forced us to make these hard choices.

[khelvan]

Sorry, but we don't include factions based on whether or not they invaded a particular area, or came into contact with a particular culture. The Casse were expansionistic and did conquer a relatively large area, about the size of Dacia at its height.

Our team looks at the entire map, and cultures that affected the whole world, not just a Romano/Greek-centric view.

[Shigawire]

There were plenty of other important minor kingdoms. Syrakosoy, the two Numidian kingdoms, all the minor warlords of Iberia (conquered by Hamilcar Barca), Belgae, Helvetii, Sabeans (early Arab culture), Illyrians, and so on...
the list goes on..