Faction List for EB2?

[Bootsiuv]

Who where the "vah-jynas* peoples*" I cant find a single thing about them any where.

Classic.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Damn Right It's A Classic!!! 2+2=5

[SouthernTrendKill]

Well, doing some research my self on these.. "vah-jyna people" I have discovered many of them came in contact with the mighty "Cockasias" in the late org-azim age, with them raping and plundering of them all... so sad...
I found most of my research very adult, and quite interesting....

[Cang]

good thread, a lot of "if"s. I was thinking, is it possible (now i might have stolen this from somewhere, i dont remember) if there was a faction that represented the "free kingdoms". Something apart from the rebel faction. Maybe even break it down into.. lets say free greek colonies, free african nations.. ect. I think breaking it down would be way too much but a free nations might make the "rebel" areas more hostile to players. Of course you can still have the rebel faction that comprises of brigands, pirates, rebel provinces, etc. Any thoughts?

[Krusader]

My Wish List for factions:

- A Balto-Slavic/East Germanic culture, such as the Przeworsk or Zarubintsy (start in Neurije, Seliun Gentis etc.)

- Greek Skythai - a power until Mithridates made them vassals. They were prospering, even though they were driven out of many of their old lands. The Sauromatae would get a rival. They would start with Skythia, Taurike Chersonesos, and perhaps Maeotis and Mikra Skythia, but not Bosporion Tyrannensis (the Spartocid dynasty lasted until c.110 BC).

- Numidia, which i know is being worked on as I speak. They will probably start with Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Massaesili, Numidia, and Mauretania

- Ethiopia, the Semitic-African kingdom. The Semitic language was not due to Sabaean influence but native Semites, who lived in coexistence with Ethiopians. There is actually a fair bit of history of Ethiopia, it probably wouldn't bee too difficult.

- Bastarnoz, the influential and quite powerful Thracian-Germanic people. History might be somewhat limited, but Imperial Roman records as well as archeology would give good strong descriptions. They would also fill in a large empty space between the Sauromatae and the Sweboz and Getai.

- A Scandanavian culture, if at all possible, and a northern extension of the map, to accurately place Sapmi.

- A Hibernian tribe. The Prehistoric Irish music could be put to good use! And more Hibernian provinces - there are only 2, and it's a tiny island.

Scythians were in decline, so probably no.

Numidia is a hot candidate though.

Ethiopia was sadly not a strong power at this time and there are other factions with a much better claim.

Bastarnoz...you know...the only thing certain about them is their name. Otherwise there is no solid proof of what ethnicity they were and how they were organized.

Scandinavian culture. Hardly likely. At this time period were there any strong tribes who tried to carve a kingdom on the expense of others? And as for there being abundant iron, Viking weapons were of iron, but not of as good quality as the blacksmiths didn't have the techniques to remove the impurities.

[Ludens]

Also, this is kind-of off-topic, but as people keep talking about more factions for North Africa, what was going on historically in the rest of Africa in this time period? In other words, if you were to extend the EB map to include all of Africa, down to what is now South Africa - I'm speaking entirely theoretically here, of course - would there be any major civilizations you could include? Or was it very divided and fractured?

I am by no means an expert, but in 272 B.C. northern Africa was dominated by the Carthaginians and the Ptolemies at this point. Minor players included various Numidian Kingdoms, the city of Cyrene and perhaps a Nubian kingdom or two. There also used to be a Libyan kingdom, but IIRC it was by now subjugated by the Carthaginians. South of Egypt there was also Kush/Meroe, but whether they were unified or not, they certainly weren't a strong nation.

I can't answer your question about southern Africa, but it's really doubtful it will be included anyway: M2:TW does not increase the province limit, and the Sahara is a good natural border for the map.

[bovi]

The... Battle axe... Culture? What's that? Are you sure you're not talking about this example of a rather younger subculture?

[Morte66]

Apart from the factions I've plugged (Syracuse and Helleno-Scythians), other people have suggested a few that caught my eye. I have a few questions about those, which might be interesting to discuss, mostly prompted by examining their Eleutheroi versions in EB1.

1. The Bastarnae
a) Where would you put them? In EB1 they're two provinces from the Getai homeland, and adjacent to Getai region 1. [I'm not suggesting this is wrong -- I wouldn't know -- just asking.]
b) In EB1 the military in that Basternae village is pretty much Sweboz with Dacian Shock Infantry renamed to "Basternae". Is that how you see them, or would there be more to it?

2. Pergamon
a) Historically/politically I like the idea of having a Greek city state in Asia Minor, like the KH but not a member. Was Pergamon actually like that, or was it more Persian?
b) Would their military be successor-style, or basically the same as the KH, or KH with a twist (serious cavalry, chariots, whatever)? I ask because I figure their important competition is the Seleucids, and EB already has "KH vs successor" or "successor vs successor" gameplay covered. If there were to be another KH style military inthe game, I'd rather it were Syracuse who face Rome/Carthage and would bring new gameplay to the mod.

3. Ireland
Would this be like the Casse or the Gallic factions, or something new?

[SouthernTrendKill]

Well, I mentioned the northern cultures as a faction to balance Germania "sweboz". Also this game starts at 274BC, or close to it; the tribes of the Rhine, and lands of Germany were no greater then the tribes of Scandinavia. If you are planning to add the Sweboz, then adding the Scandinavians would be no different. Plus the tribes of Scandinavia would be fighting wars south. Thats what they did. They would plunder and pillage, much like the later Norwegians/Saxons vikings. The Germanic tribes never were powerful until around 100BC or 9AD,I believe thats is when they finally got lots of contact with romans, so its of no great strength to add Scandinavian tribe to the roster.Plus the tribes surrounding Scandinavia made Germanic tribe .Also adding another Germanic tribe would be very bland...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Scythians were in decline, so probably no. [..]

Hmm, wasn't everybody except Rome in decline? A bit exaggerated, but I don't think this is an argument. Who says the Scythians could not have risen to power again?

Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...

Höhöhö, am I right???

[Morte66]

Hmm, wasn't everybody except Rome in decline? A bit exaggerated, but I don't think this is an argument. Who says the Scythians could not have risen to power again?

+1 :)

And they bring something new and unique to the game, instead of duplicating existing factions.

Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. [...] Höhöhö, am I right???

I wondered if the team would do that... Dunno if you're correct, but I would like to see it. And it create three unique factions: Spartans with their unique social/military seup, Athens as the stereotypical Greeks, Rhodes at sea. Having Athens and Sparta together forever always made my skin itch, even if it's correct at the start date.

[Patriote]

[QUOTE=Centurio Nixalsverdrus]Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc...QUOTE]

Yeah but how would you manage to make them powerful enough to be "city-faction" knowing the AI they will end up fighting each other as soon as the first turn is over. Thats because they will have almost no place to expand considering the fact that KH holds only 2 cities directly in Greece(Athens and Sparta I think, the others beings controlled by Makedonia, correct me if I'm wrong) and there is only one rebel city near to be conquered. Even when grouped together, I have the feeling that KH is not that difficult for Makedonia or Epirotes to conquer (well I did not but maybe if Epirotes, Makedonia and KH are all managed by the AI they might pull off something)

So unless you come up with something that could make them independant but still powerful and playable I think that taking 2 more slots for the sake 3 of creek city-states does not seem to be a good way to use the new factions slots that will be available.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Well, when governed by the AI, KH comes out as the winner in almost 40%, Epeirus 50%, and poor Maks only 10%... I think dividing the KH would also be very benefitting for gameplay.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Scythians were in decline, so probably no.

Numidia is a hot candidate though.

Ethiopia was sadly not a strong power at this time and there are other factions with a much better claim.

Bastarnoz...you know...the only thing certain about them is their name. Otherwise there is no solid proof of what ethnicity they were and how they were organized.

Scandinavian culture. Hardly likely. At this time period were there any strong tribes who tried to carve a kingdom on the expense of others? And as for there being abundant iron, Viking weapons were of iron, but not of as good quality as the blacksmiths didn't have the techniques to remove the impurities.

And, as for roles to one day become great nations??? Thats extremely odd to think about, for last I checked no ones nation grew what so ever even into 400-500AD +, The only ones left were Rome, Egypt, The Brit's and by that time the many old kingdoms failed (i guess India too, u never added them either) And Germanic tribes made what is now France (Franks), and Germany, Even Romania if u really must push it. Great nations fell; Greece, Macedonian, Persia etc... They might of had ambitions of becoming great powers, and if they did they eventually failed. Scandinavian tribes would have only been rising, They never had declined. They went up. And as to make a power Tribe/Nation yes they fought amongst them selfs. O WAIT JUST LIKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES DID, Germany never really invaded other lands other then there own to make a single German unit, Rome tried to invade, but failed miserable.Scandinavian tribal wars for power would have been in all of northern Europe Northern Germany to North Russia, They all most made Russia,!!! .Wars to other nations other then Rome were few and far between. Also for conflicts making nothing and have few major powers come from them.... People in Germanic land immigrated creating new groups,!!! So many of the tribes you have now aren't "par-se", even make it to your very own standards. Gauls or never lasted either... THE FRANKS TOOK THEM OVER. But yet you have them in the game? Why might this be? Answer me that. Also the romans to took them over not after to long (before the franks). They might of made a nation, but they didn't last long, and pretty much didn't make a kingdom...

[Ludens]

Btw, I just figured out three of the new factions in EB2: Athens, Sparte and Rhodos. They will start allied, and so the rather ridiculous KH can be removed. I mean, come on! They could have never been able to create an empire. We can say with 99% probability that once they would have managed to shake off Macedonian hegemony, they would have fallen back into their old behaviour of provincial imperialism for that they were so well known for. It's absolutely impossible for them to stick together because it totally contradicts their idea of state, liberty, self-governance etc etc..?

True, but the unstable alliance argument applies to a greater or lesser extent to all factions. Even the Italian Socii revolted when Rome became powerful and refused to share out the booty. Being loyal to ones place of origin rather than to the idea a greater nation is hardly a exclusively Greek characteristic.

The problem with splitting up the KH is that it would result in both Athens and Sparta getting quickly gobbled up by either the Macedones or the Epirotes. They need to be in a single faction in order to survive. It seems a waste to spend two or three faction slots to a couple of not-very-powerful city states when there are so much more potential factions out waiting there.

And, as for roles to one day become great nations??? Thats extremely odd to think about, for last I checked no ones nation grew what so ever even into 400-500AD +, The only ones left were Rome, Egypt, The Brit's and by that time the many old kingdoms failed (i guess India too, u never added them either) And Germanic tribes made what is now France (Franks), and Germany, Even Romania if u really must push it. Great nations fell; Greece, Macedonian, Persia etc... They might of had ambitions of becoming great powers, and if they did they eventually failed.

Taking this argument to it's logical extreme, none of the empires in EB should be included since they all fell in history. But the achievement of an empire is not the criteria, it's the potential to form an empire. The Romans and Diadochi obviously had this potential. The Celts had it too, because they had once been an empire. The Suebi may also have pulled it off. The Scandiniavians on the other hand lacked a governemental structure that would allow empire formation. Heck, they probably weren't even unified. They wouldn't have been capable of serious expansion in the way the existing factions are. Could they have formed an empire? Well, who knows, if they were unified and proved themselves adaptable, but that seems rather slim ground for turning them into a faction when there are much more likely candidates available.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

True, but the unstable alliance argument applies to a greater or lesser extent to all factions. Even the Italian Socii revolted when Rome became powerful and refused to share out the booty. Being loyal to ones place of origin rather than to the idea a greater nation is hardly a exclusively Greek characteristic.

It's not exclusivly Greek, but in Greece it's arguably most developed. Greece was a world of independent cities, and that was the core of there Greekness in my onpinion, the absolute desire for independance. Rome achieved hegemony over most of Italy after the epic struggles of the past 200 years, first subdueing the other Latin cities, than the rest of central Italy. Athens never subdued someone outside Attica. Sparte never subdued anyone outside Lakonia. And although they had of course (great) influence outside their respective areas (at least Athens), neither Athens was superior to Sparte nor was Sparte superior to Athens. After the Peloponnesian War the hegemonial ambitions of both cities were halted, and both fell under the hegemony of a third party, Makedonia. How could the Koinon Hellenon have formed if it weren't for the Makedonian hegemony? Wasn't it after all a response to being governed from the outside? Wasn't it after all an anti-Makedonian rebellion?

I agree with you that one could apply the split-alliance-argument to other factions as well. Not on the Romans in my opinion, but most notably on the two Gaulic confederacies. And I must admit that I have problems to imagine how these two could have established an empire.

The problem with splitting up the KH is that it would result in both Athens and Sparta getting quickly gobbled up by either the Macedones or the Epirotes. They need to be in a single faction in order to survive. It seems a waste to spend two or three faction slots to a couple of not-very-powerful city states when there are so much more potential factions out waiting there.

What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.

I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.

I repeat my claim that in the current build, the AI-KH comes out as the winner of the struggles for Hellas in more than 50%, and that is too much, really. Plus they almost never get destroyed, just due to the fact that the AI never goes by boat to conquer Rhodos (at least without BI). And even in my current Mak-campaign, Rhodos lasted almost 30 years (that's 30 years longer than Athens and Sparte) till I had the man power free to finish them off, resulting in a Rhodian fullstack invading Lykia. After all, the KH-cities weren't a strong faction. They were a faction with lots of problems to survive - which should be represented better. After all, there are no equal chances for all the factions. Some have it very easy, and some are somewhat doomed.

[Foot]

What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.

Ludens isn't an EB-fellow. And we haven't said no to all of them.

I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.

I repeat my claim that in the current build, the AI-KH comes out as the winner of the struggles for Hellas in more than 50%, and that is too much, really. Plus they almost never get destroyed, just due to the fact that the AI never goes by boat to conquer Rhodos (at least without BI). And even in my current Mak-campaign, Rhodos lasted almost 30 years (that's 30 years longer than Athens and Sparte) till I had the man power free to finish them off, resulting in a Rhodian fullstack invading Lykia. After all, the KH-cities weren't a strong faction. They were a faction with lots of problems to survive - which should be represented better. After all, there are no equal chances for all the factions. Some have it very easy, and some are somewhat doomed.

So what you want us to do instead is to have three new factions. Arguably neither Sparta, Athens or Rhodes were in a position to expand in this time-period. I reckon we should get rid of KH entirely, just have those city-states in the south as rebel settlements. Far better. Then we can spend that one faction slot someplace more deserving.

If you want to play a proper KH game then you have to roleplay, if you are playing against them, then it doesn't matter if they are three factions or one, they won't act any different once they get a sniff of the player.

We won't be splitting up KH.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Skythia was more than declining, they were kind of declined...
I don't think any faction in EB is necessarily declining at the start. The 'barbarians' are independant and capable of forming power by taking neighbors. Gaul was up and down throughout the time frame but not necessarily declining. Carthage was rising. Rome and Parthia were about to rise. Ptolemai and Seleucia were fighting eachother and whoever won would be quite powerful - Seleucia historically won and did quite well for some time after the start time. Antigonos was building an empire. The only factions I would describe as declining would be Epirus and KH.

About KH, if they were lone cities they would be too weak to be considered for factions. Only together do they get a faction slot. If they were devided, they might as well be powerful rebel territories.

Personally, I'd like to see a Nubian faction. But they were too weak and didn't have a diverse military.

[ledzepp1000]

Taking this argument to it's logical extreme, none of the empires in EB should be included since they all fell in history. But the achievement of an empire is not the criteria, it's the potential to form an empire. The Romans and Diadochi obviously had this potential. The Celts had it too, because they had once been an empire. The Suebi may also have pulled it off. The Scandiniavians on the other hand lacked a governemental structure that would allow empire formation. Heck, they probably weren't even unified. They wouldn't have been capable of serious expansion in the way the existing factions are. Could they have formed an empire? Well, who knows, if they were unified and proved themselves adaptable, but that seems rather slim ground for turning them into a faction when there are much more likely candidates available.

True that the Scandinavians occasionally had conflict but that does not mean that they were never united. They did open trade with each other, and worked together for there benefit. They did go on offensives and raids of other tribes together that were not there own region many times. The Greeks for example whom had extremely advanced governments rarely worked together unless an outside source threatened Greece. Furthermore the Scandinavian government may not have been quite as advanced but it was as advanced as many of the tribes in Mesopotamia that were united into the Persian empire so the only factor missing from Scandinavians creating an empire was a single person to unite them. Also concerning there weapons the barbarians of Europe with the same basic weapons where responsible for the destruction of the romans among other factors. With those factors combined Scandinavia was basically organized the same way as the Germanic tribes and could have been easily organized to create a kingdom.

[Bootsiuv]

Athens never subdued someone outside Attica.

That's not entirely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

I understand the context of what you're saying, and agree that Athens and Sparta couldn't have built an empire in 272 BC....I just wanted to point out that Athens did indeed subdue, in an indirect way at first, but more directly as their power grew, those outside attica, albeit two hundred years before the start of our game.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Ludens isn't an EB-fellow. And we haven't said no to all of them.

I think the green colour of Ludens' name somehow irritated me. And I wrote this sentence about your "no" with an ironic smily.

So what you want us to do instead is to have three new factions. Arguably neither Sparta, Athens or Rhodes were in a position to expand in this time-period. I reckon we should get rid of KH entirely, just have those city-states in the south as rebel settlements. Far better. Then we can spend that one faction slot someplace more deserving.

There is no need to feel offended about KH or getting sarcastic please. I quite like the Greeks, I just don't feel comfortable with such a thing like the KH, a Nazi-esque city and a "democratic" system together hand in hand building an empire. There is so much hatred and resentment between these two major Greek players that I just can't imagine them not splitting up immediatly after getting rid of the Makedones.

If you want to play a proper KH game then you have to roleplay, if you are playing against them, then it doesn't matter if they are three factions or one, they won't act any different once they get a sniff of the player.

We won't be splitting up KH.

OK. But there IS one occasion when KH is not so nice: Playing a distant faction and then usually seeing it on the map having conquered whole Greece and up to Thrace. That's not so funny, almost like the Romans conquering Poland.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

That's not entirely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

I understand the context of what you're saying, and agree that Athens and Sparta couldn't have built an empire in 272 BC....I just wanted to point out that Athens did indeed subdue, in an indirect way at first, but more directly as their power grew, those outside attica, albeit two hundred years before the start of our game.

Thanks for your hint.

[Cybvep]

Gameplay-wise, another German and Iberian faction (probably Celtiberians) would be needed. I mean, the Sweboz have too little trouble both in the beginning and in the later game. Oh, and IIRC, guys from the "German Team" informed us in the "Sweboz slightly underpowered" thread that they wanted to add the another German faction. In case of the Celtiberians - an another faction in Iberia would create a situation similar to Aedui-Arverni thing...

Numidia would also be good (more trouble in Africa is always good, as it's rather empty in almost every TW game or mod), and its inclusion seems quite likely, seeing as it always was a some kind of "a faction that the team wanted to include but couldn't (because of the faction limit)".

Greece is already cluttered and the only thing that it needs is balancing, and it's a never-ending process.

Syracuse would be a "one-city faction" that would stop Karthadastim, SPQR and (sometimes) Epeiros for a short period of time and would be eliminated very early in the game, so it probably should stay as the Eleutheroi city (maybe with an unique unit or two).

Another faction (or factions) in Asia would be good and the more trouble the Seleucids have, the better. Maybe the Galatians? Or the Pergamon?

Oh, and the Getai are passive, but maybe some competition would liven them up?

[Seleukos Syriakos]

some suggestions for newe factions:

*Western Germanic Faction e.g. Chatti or Cherusci to prevent a Italia/ Graeco/ Gallo-Germanic Empire
*Eastern Germanic Faction e.g. Bastarnae (suggested before) or maybe Neuriji to challenge/ force the Sauromatae to expand (in most games they remain dormant; like my latest Makedon campaign it's already 180BCE and Sauromatae only captured 1 city and lost another to Pahlavi)
*Illyria (for about the same reason as the Western Germanic Faction)
*Numidia/ Berber Tribes, Maybe an expansion of Africa, Carthage had some colonies along Africa's west coast founded by Hanno
*Illyria (as suggested earlier)
*Rival faction to challenge the Casse in Britian
*Aksum/ D'mt/ some Ethiopian faction
*Another Steppe faction such as Massagetae or Dahae
*Nabataeans to challenege Seleucid expansion into Arabia
*Galatians to bring more conflict into Anatolia and possibly waging war with Pontos or Seleucia
*Bosporan Kingdom to challenge Sauromatae and Hayasdan
*Maurya, Pandya and Yuezhi (If there the map expands east)

I think Gaul is already crowded enough with 2 factions, Syracuse would also not be a good idea because it would get destroyed very early (according to Cybvep)
Greece is already crowded enough and to make a new faction there (e.g. Aetolian/ Aechean League) would cause lots of trouble


p.s. why does Koinon Hellenon represent the Chremonidean league (according to EB's website)? the Chremonidean war did not start until 268/269 BCE

[I Am Herenow]

I can't speak for the other factions you've mentioned, Seleukos Syriakos, but the EB team has already stated that

1. They won't expand the EB map in EB2, due to them already being at the RTW province limit (and consequently at the M2 province limit: it's the same).
2. The fact that they will have no additional territory or provinces to play with means the EB team won't include Maurya.
3. EB has already decided against emerging factions, and as the Yuezhi entered the EB map after the start date, they won't be included either.

[Foot]

p.s. why does Koinon Hellenon represent the Chremonidean league (according to EB's website)? the Chremonidean war did not start until 268/269 BCE

Well I assume there was some diplomatic talks between the cities for a few years before then. There was nothing else suitable in the timeframe and so we used that alliance.

Foot

[Antagonist]

2. Pergamon
a) Historically/politically I like the idea of having a Greek city state in Asia Minor, like the KH but not a member. Was Pergamon actually like that, or was it more Persian?
b) Would their military be successor-style, or basically the same as the KH, or KH with a twist (serious cavalry, chariots, whatever)? I ask because I figure their important competition is the Seleucids, and EB already has "KH vs successor" or "successor vs successor" gameplay covered. If there were to be another KH style military inthe game, I'd rather it were Syracuse who face Rome/Carthage and would bring new gameplay to the mod.

I believe they would be Hellenic (at least relative to Pontos or whatever) but I'm not sure. IIRC both Pergamon and Syracuse have been confirmed as possibilities, probably less likely that they would both be in though.

3. Ireland
Would this be like the Casse or the Gallic factions, or something new?

You can get a flavour of what they would be like from the Goidilic units in EB1. As I understand it from previous discussions, the proposed Goidilic faction (Erainn) would start off fairly similar to the Casse, but over time reforms and so on would introduce more Iberian influences to their units. So they would potentially end up as a kind of Casse/Lusotannan hybrid in terms of units. I suppose that the reason there is interest in them for a second British Isles faction is that they would be more unique than the Brigantes or whatever, who would presumably be very like the Casse miltarily, like the Aedui/Arverni.

Antagonist

[Ludens]

What potential factions? You EB-fellows say "no" to almost every proposal.

As Foot said, I am not an EB member. But I am sure that the EB team has considered many of the options mentioned in this thread.

I agree with you that one could apply the split-alliance-argument to other factions as well. Not on the Romans in my opinion, but most notably on the two Gaulic confederacies. And I must admit that I have problems to imagine how these two could have established an empire.

Perhaps empire is the wrong word, but the Cubi-Biturge confederation (of whom the Aedui were the inheritors) once ruled over Gaul and a large chunck of central Europe, so it was possible.

You are right that the KH would be the most fickle of alliances represented as a faction, but what I am saying is that they wouldn't have been the only uncertain one. IIRC both the Lusitanians and the Sauromatea represent confederacies of several tribes, and even the Romans had at one point to deal with a serious uprising of the Italian Allies. So including a Greek unified faction is not that much of a stretch, and it's either that or drop them alltogether.

I disagree to your claim that they wouldn't survive alone. You have to give them a strong starting army, of course, and I'm quite sure that the "faction progression"-thread would reveal a conquest of Korinthos and Chalkis in more than 50%. And Rhodos would be in a very safe position.

Athens didn't have a large army, or else they wouldn't have needed the help of Sparta. There is more ways of weakening them than splitting them up. If they are too strong now than splitting them will make them too weak. Alone, Athens didn't stand a chance against Macedon, even in the weakened state it was.

True that the Scandinavians occasionally had conflict but that does not mean that they were never united. They did open trade with each other, and worked together for there benefit. They did go on offensives and raids of other tribes together that were not there own region many times. (...) Furthermore the Scandinavian government may not have been quite as advanced but it was as advanced as many of the tribes in Mesopotamia that were united into the Persian empire so the only factor missing from Scandinavians creating an empire was a single person to unite them. (...) With those factors combined Scandinavia was basically organized the same way as the Germanic tribes and could have been easily organized to create a kingdom.

All true, yet that applies to many tribes. They could have been united. They could have invaded nearby territory. They could have developed a strong governement. I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.

[Krusader]

Why should we include Scandinavians? True they might have been as powerful as some other tribes, but some of those other tribes we are considering ended up carving up kingdoms of their own.

Which leads to my next point. We have more sources on those tribes that were more successful and we are not going to choose factions which we will have much trouble getting sources on and manpower to work on. *cough*Saba *cough*
And be careful with what evidence you come with. I've seen some theories and "evidence" here at the University in Bergen about ancient Norwegians.
Like us being Caucasus immigrants due to that we have some words remarkably similar to Assyrian. Although that theory has a few merits...

Now take the Bastarnae/Bastarnoz. They were probably Germanic and we know a few bits about what they did and who they fought for. However there is still speculation on how Germanic they were, were they Germanic at all, how much influenced were they by Sarmatians, Getai & Celts? Were they Sarmatians or Getai?
We don't know much about the Bastarnae, which is probably why they will not be in EB2.

[SouthernTrendKill]

[QUOTE I am not saying it's impossible, just not very likely, and there are more powerful candidates available.[/QUOTE]

I'm sooo lost on this more powerful candidates... There is few more then you can offer to add more variety to the game... Are we not supposed to balance that Germanic tribe??? YES!!! Then well... A northern tribe would at least keep them on an offense to the north, instead of them just flying by there normal game of fighting "rebels". And please ... when you played as sweboz in Eb1 you know pretty much you were left alone the majority of the game; unless you took the liberty to actually get in there and fight. Every other faction at lest had a neighbor that was in range early in the game and was of an equal fight
... unlike rebels surrounding you... And to say there are better candidates is a little too much, What if the Scandinavian tribes took off, and united early, what if they become a pro dominate terror in the north a little faster,(Like every thing does in that game, which is true: "Rome, Germania, Dacia") etc... So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose. And as for use in that game; it does give a major balance that was needed, and some people have mentioned that as well...