I'm going to be accused of bias here, but the Germans and Hibernians didn’t have significant enough political entities to warrant additional factions on their behalf in this period. Further if such were to be done, it would have to be in a generic sense, which goes against EB’s modes operandi of depicting actual politics, eg. The Aedui confederacy / Arverni Alliance as opposed to an ahistorical generic ‘Gauls’, ‘Northern Gauls’, ‘Southern Gauls’, ‘Gallic Barbarians’, or some other such nomenclature.

Quote Originally Posted by Imperator
Gaul (even with two tribes, it's still mostly rebel, and that's no fun when we can have yet another tribe thrown in...)
True, if further western barbs are to be considered, one could add the Belgae Confederacy under the Suessiones. This would include most of the Belgae and small parts of southern Briton.
The Boii (‘Strikers’) would also be a good choice with extensive land in southern Germany and northern Italy.
Even the Volcae (‘Wolves’) would add an interesting mix with lands in southern France, Asia Minor (Galati) and all over eastern Europe, though they’d not be easy to depict due to their political structure; tetrachal power sharing in triumvirates (three tribes).
The Celiberian ‘Arevaci Coalition’ would be a good addition in opposition to the Lusitani in Iberia / Spain, though some claim the name too similar to the Arverni.

The Gallic Brigantes would be good in mid-northern Briton.

Numidians would also be welcomed in Africa.

Quote Originally Posted by Imperator
Cisalpine Gaul (they weren't united in the first place, and the strongest tribe is already represented as an ally of the Aedui.)
:
Yup, adding the Boii would certainly liven things up.


Just my2bob