Quote Originally Posted by 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..?
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.

Quote Originally Posted by SouthernTrendKill
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.