Faction List for EB2?

[Ludens]

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!!!

Err... No. And even if "we" did, then it doesn't necesarily require a faction to to do so. You can also beef up the Eleutheroi or weaken the Sweboz. And even if you do need a faction, then it doesn't have to be the Scandinavians. There is several major tribes closer by and with a greater impact on history. So why the Scandinavians and not, for example, the Cimbri or the Noricenes?

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,

That's three "what if's". I think you have proven my point: the Scandinavians failed several requirements required to become an empire. That could have changed, but it's unlikely, and certainly in 272 B.C. they were in no position to start an empire.

So in logical extreme, like someones pointed out early; there are few better ones to choose.

I already mentioned the Cimbri and the Noricenes, but one could also think of the Belgae and the Bastarnoz (if they won't be included, alas, they still were a power in their own right). And this is just the same area. So again, why should a faction be included that needs to be unified and strenghtened first before being capable of forming an empire?

[Xehh II]

The best ever Idea is making Sparta, Athens and Rhodes Sperate factions.

[King Orko]

Numidia should be smaller(in reality it never controled Maurtania)

[ledzepp1000]

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.

Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.

[Foot]

Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.

Lugians and Basternoz would both be different. Truth is, we don't like factions that back onto a map edge. A scandinavian faction will not be making it in, we don't have the expertise and it wouldn't offer much in the way of gameplay benefits (an eastern germanic faction would do much better).

Foot

[SouthernTrendKill]

Err... No. And even if "we" did, then it doesn't necesarily require a faction to to do so. You can also beef up the Eleutheroi or weaken the Sweboz. And even if you do need a faction, then it doesn't have to be the Scandinavians. There is several major tribes closer by and with a greater impact on history. So why the Scandinavians and not, for example, the Cimbri or the Noricenes?


That's three "what if's". I think you have proven my point: the Scandinavians failed several requirements required to become an empire. That could have changed, but it's unlikely, and certainly in 272 B.C. they were in no position to start an empire.


I already mentioned the Cimbri and the Noricenes, but one could also think of the Belgae and the Bastarnoz (if they won't be included, alas, they still were a power in their own right). And this is just the same area. So again, why should a faction be included that needs to be unified and strengthened first before being capable of forming an empire?

1st off "Cimbri" is a Scandinavian tribe! THERE FROM JUTLAND THAT'S DENMARK! That's apart of the Nordic unions, and economics today! They have a Nordic cross on there flag too ! LOL And Bastarnoz, Belgae your right they were some what powerful in there on right, but no way could they contend with the others... Adding "Cimbri" wouldn't be such a bad idea I guess, but still, would not it be interesting to show a farther north tribe. Which would be much like Cimbri.

[Rundownloser]

I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?

I also think that a Greek/Scythian faction in the Crimea would be a stellar idea. The Spartocid dynasty of the Bosporan Kingdom could benefit from a really cool blend of Greek and Pseudo-Greek units along with a healthy dose of horse archers (Perhaps similar to Saka post-reforms). I don't know too much, but this link has some information, particularly names of various rulers and lengths of their rule:

http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/crimea.html#Bosporus

If you scroll to the top and hit home, and then general index, you can look up dynasties from all over the place. All told, pretty nifty.

[Wolfman]

Historically I think Syracuse (like the two numidian kingdom) is too important not to put in.

[Morte66]

I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?

But that's what's so interesting about playing them...

[Rundownloser]

Was Syracuse capable of meaningful expansion/conquest during the period? I'll be honest, I don't know the history well enough to adjudicate this point (All I know is that they might have conquered Messana if not for the Carthaginians). The second question is, assuming that Syracuse wasn't capable, do they still deserve the spot? It seems like they'd get dominated with Carthage to one side and Rome to the other (albeit a few years before they saw Rome). I know that the siege of Syracuse ended in 212 or so, but that was because it had rebelled against Roman rule. Since 263, it was an allied state of the republic under Heiro II, who took power seven years earlier. Wouldn't that basically be a type 4 government? As a faction, in game terms, it only existed for 9 years since the beginning of the game, before being conquered by Rome (in essence).

On another note, perhaps instead of splitting up the Greek faction, more anti-Spartan/anti-Athenian traits could be introduced, or maybe even an enhanced and expanded version of the Barcid/Anti-Barcid trait system. You could have the missions pop up (a la nobles/pope missions from M2) for one goal or another and their completion or failure could increase/decrease unrest in certain cities, effect FM loyalty, etc.

[Ludens]

Yes but the fact is that all tribes in that area including the Sweboz could have become a powerful nation, but they didn't. So if the Sweboz can become an empire in EB why not a Scandinavian tribe whom will add a new dimension to the game. I mean all the candidates that could be chosen to make that area more populated for say are way to similar to the Sweboz.

I am not really up to date on the Germanic tribes, but as I understand it the Sweboz were the most sophisticated of them, governementally. At least they were mostly unified, which is not something that can be said about the Scandinavians. Also, we know very little about the tribes that inhabited Scandinavia at this point in time.

1st off "Cimbri" is a Scandinavian tribe! THERE FROM JUTLAND THAT'S DENMARK! (...) Adding "Cimbri" wouldn't be such a bad idea I guess, but still, would not it be interesting to show a farther north tribe. Which would be much like Cimbri.

I stand corrected. Although I do wonder why you keep prefering a northern tribe over an existing one like the Cimbri.

And Bastarnoz, Belgae your right they were some what powerful in there on right, but no way could they contend with the others...

The Belgae launched a major invasion of Gaul and defeated the Aedui just before the start of the game. It was only the intervention of the Carnutes that turned them back. The Bastarnoz consistently were a thorn in the side of first the Dacians and then the Romans. What did the Scandinavians do?

[Trax]

I agree with Cybvep, Syracuse would probably be a bad call: lodged right between Carthage and Rome, I can't see them surviving from very long. Carthage alone would probably take them out in the first couple of years, considering they would most likely start off in a war. And people think Pontus and Saba are difficult. In addition, was Syracuse really in a position to expand?

Syracuse would be extremly challenging an fun to play IMHO.
Also Syracuse as a rebel city lasts decades, Syracuse as a faction will probably last a lot longer bacause the AI is much more agressive towards the Rebels the other factions.

[Krusader]

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...

Why this obsession with Scandinavian tribes?? They did not expand majorly or have substantial proof they attempted to.

Plus if we want to limit the Sweboz we have many candidates with more sources available on: We got the Belgae tribes in west. Some of the rebel areas in Germany contain Germanic tribes we can up to faction-level. We have the Helvetii. Boii in Austria/Czech Republic area. Aesti and Lugii/Lugians in east and also Rugians.

Unless we have major evidence and sources for a relatively obscure faction I can safely say EB will go for more known factions.

Although, if you can supply me with evidence about Scandinavian tribal customs, military, administration, religion and history I'll be sure to forward it as a suggestion. We are hobby historians mainly (with a core of professional ones). We are not wizards. We can't just use a magic wand and voila find sources & evidence for whatever we want. So no Scandinavians unless there is evidence & sources we can use to make one. We won't make up stuff either.
And should you find evidence make sure to check who wrote it or found it and described it, as you can't take any text or archeological find's description without a critical view.

[Patriote]

Well said Krusader Asking for a faction or a list of factions, even if you don't know if it would be possible to add it or them is one thing (total acceptable I might add) but asking for a faction almost starting a "war" because someone told you would not be possible to add it rather silly

If you want to see so badly a Scandinavian tribe, you should be here arguing that they should be include but rather looking out for well documented sources that will prove your point that they should be include.

---------------------

Proving the others wrong does not prove that you are right ...

[SouthernTrendKill]

I stand corrected. Although I do wonder why you keep prefering a northern tribe over an existing one like the Cimbri.

LOL, dude that would be awesome if you put Cimbri in. I don't see a reason why not to put them in. I just like the more northern tribes better, there ultimately the same, but Cimbri did have a battle history with Rome, that I know from research. So they would cut the availability? I hope soo.... Tribes father north just don't have any history able to find on them at hand, truly it's extremely hard. But they would be very like the Cimbri.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Why this obsession with Scandinavian tribes?? They did not expand majorly or have substantial proof they attempted to.

Plus if we want to limit the Sweboz we have many candidates with more sources available on: We got the Belgae tribes in west. Some of the rebel areas in Germany contain Germanic tribes we can up to faction-level. We have the Helvetii. Boii in Austria/Czech Republic area. Aesti and Lugii/Lugians in east and also Rugians.

Unless we have major evidence and sources for a relatively obscure faction I can safely say EB will go for more known factions.

Although, if you can supply me with evidence about Scandinavian tribal customs, military, administration, religion and history I'll be sure to forward it as a suggestion. We are hobby historians mainly (with a core of professional ones). We are not wizards. We can't just use a magic wand and voila find sources & evidence for whatever we want. So no Scandinavians unless there is evidence & sources we can use to make one. We won't make up stuff either.
And should you find evidence make sure to check who wrote it or found it and described it, as you can't take any text or archeological find's description without a critical view.

BBLAHAehaHAtrjarnaj!!! OK, OK!!! I have been giving out info, it seem ledzepp has as well. But tonight I shall find some "facts". I guess I will giving links to my findings???
Military, I can say with ease that Germanic tribes would be very close. OOO BUT YOU NEED FACTS!!! right.... I'll do my best.

[Ludens]

LOL, dude that would be awesome if you put Cimbri in.

Just for the record: I am not an EB member.

I don't see a reason why not to put them in.

Limited number of faction slots for one, limited knowledge about them for another, limit impact on history for a third. You can't add factions just because they may have achieved something. You need to show they were a serious player, even if they lost in the end. Those are the facts you need to look for. In this particular case, you will have to find a Scandinavian tribe that was sufficiently unified in or around 272 B.C., and possessed the military might and political acumen for extensive expansion.

[SouthernTrendKill]

Limited number of faction slots for one, limited knowledge about them for another, limit impact on history for a third. You can't add factions just because they may have achieved something. You need to show they were a serious player, even if they lost in the end. Those are the facts you need to look for. In this particular case, you will have to find a Scandinavian tribe that was sufficiently unified in or around 272 B.C., and possessed the military might and political acumen for extensive expansion.

Well, they did attack the Roman empire a few times. How many people in that time period actually "ATTACKED" Rome??? (as in starting a war with Rome, NOT being invading them ESPECIALLY A BARBARIAN ONE AT THAT) They wanted land, they settled lots of land in Germania, and Cezh; mostly the northern part of Germania where there home land was close too. And attacked Rome on its northern front ( ITALY AT THIS TIME). Not sure if they managed to stay there, and if they did it wasn't for a long time. But that is simply history...

That in my opinion is one helluva contender.

[KARTLOS]

[QUOTE=Patriote]

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.

if you give sparta and athens fll stacks to begin with and a fair bit of cash, then at least one of them would have a fighting chance.

[CrownOfSwords]

Syracuse has to be in there..... they held their own against the Carthagians for a long time and even the Romans... for awhile. If they managed to beat carthage out of sicily they could also be a buffer against Rome. Personally id like to see more Greek factions, it seems right now in EB1 Greece and Macedon fight a pretty brutal war against each other and whoever wins(which seems pretty random to me in my campaigns) then blitzes a huge portion of the map. If there were more factions in there it would be even more brutal and take longer before one of them unleashes the blitzkrieg :P

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Well, they did attack the Roman empire a few times. How many people in that time period actually "ATTACKED" Rome??? (as in starting a war with Rome, NOT being invading them ESPECIALLY A BARBARIAN ONE AT THAT) They wanted land, they settled lots of land in Germania, and Cezh; mostly the northern part of Germania where there home land was close too. And attacked Rome on its northern front ( ITALY AT THIS TIME). Not sure if they managed to stay there, and if they did it wasn't for a long time. But that is simply history...

That in my opinion is one helluva contender.

But when did they attack Rome?

[Geoffrey S]

Personally I'd be interested in seeing the Koinon made a more involving experience. Right now it seems too tight and solid, detracting from the differences between members. It would be interesting to have one city playable with the others being gained (or lost) through missions, but I guess that would require a lot of scripting.

Personal faves for new factions? Syracuse, a Numidian kingdom, Pergamon, Bosporan Greeks, Massiliotes (though I guess they're unlikely but I like their Greek-Gallic thing), a Belgic tribe, another Germanic tribe (either Lugii or Basternae would be great), and Goidils. Some Celtiberians and Illyrians would be nice, too, but I don't know if they'd be enough unified.

[Trax]

But when did they attack Rome?

They (Cimbri & Teutones) triggered the Marian reforms. The war took place between 113BC - 101BC

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Yes, two crushing defeats for the Romans (Noreia 113 and Arausio 105).

[Krusader]

Personally I'd be interested in seeing the Koinon made a more involving experience. Right now it seems too tight and solid, detracting from the differences between members. It would be interesting to have one city playable with the others being gained (or lost) through missions, but I guess that would require a lot of scripting.

Personal faves for new factions? Syracuse, a Numidian kingdom, Pergamon, Bosporan Greeks, Massiliotes (though I guess they're unlikely but I like their Greek-Gallic thing), a Belgic tribe, another Germanic tribe (either Lugii or Basternae would be great), and Goidils. Some Celtiberians and Illyrians would be nice, too, but I don't know if they'd be enough unified.

The Koinon will stay as it is.
However we will look into making it harder to be them if you are successful and begin expanding out of Greece to represent the members thinking it's safe enough for them to leave the Koinon.

[Foot]

Yes, with more flexibility with events and what they can trigger, we should be able to do something quite nice with them.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

They (Cimbri & Teutones) triggered the Marian reforms. The war took place between 113BC - 101BC

And that is 160 years after the start date.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

And that is 160 years after the start date.

What does that sentence mean? It's 159 years after the start date and 127 years before the end date. Or, in other words, it's right in the middle of EB's timeframe.

[SouthernTrendKill]

But when did they attack Rome?

Hmmm, around 104BC.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Thereby you've already provided yourself an answer. We do not do emerging factions, period.