Faction List for EB2?

[-Praetor-]

There's absolutely no way we are going to have a Jewish faction in EBII.

This was announced in 2007 already.

Deal with it.

[Owen Glyndwr]

And yet there will still be hundreds of "Will there be a Jewish faction" threads between now and EBII's release date.

[WinsingtonIII]

There's absolutely no way we are going to have a Jewish faction in EBII.

This was announced in 2007 already.

Deal with it.

If this was in response to my post, I hope you understand that I was agreeing with you and trying to explain the reasoning behind it... I hope I wasn't misunderstood.

[resodan]

What about Meroe? I found EB I left little to do in NE Africa. Meroe was an established and important kingdom at the time of the beginning of the mod and continued to be well into the Roman period. Meroitic armies invaded Roman Egypt and Roman armies struck back into Meroe. Furthermore, Meroe was an important trade area and something of an intermediary between the Mediterranean world and the African interior. I'd suggest Aksum/Axum, too, but that empire arose too late to qualify.

The land of Kush/Meroe/Nubia was known from millenia to produce excellent archers and brave, if ill equipped, infantry and cavalry. There are certainly good units to be made. Furthermore, both Romans and Kushites fought the Blemmyes, likely the ancestors of the modern Beja and inhabitants of the arid, gold rich Red Sea hills straddling the modern borders of Egypt and Sudan. Blemmye mercenaries could be new unites, as could Noba mercenaries in the far south.

The map could therefore include a few new provinces. One for the Blemmyes, and a few in Kush/Nubia, perhaps with borders at the cataracts of the Nile.

It doesn't make sense to me to include two nomadic, Iranian factions (Saka Rauka and Sarmatians) which did not have centralized political control, yet not include a long-lasting, economically and geopolitically important centralized state that fits within the geography and time frame of the mod. There is plenty enough information out there on the Meroitic period to create a faction, and I'd be happy to contribute information or at least recommend sources to check out (like archaeologist Derek Welsby's books). I'm glad to see the the Numidians included, I just hope the Meroites will be as well!

[WinsingtonIII]

The map could therefore include a few new provinces. One for the Blemmyes, and a few in Kush/Nubia, perhaps with borders at the cataracts of the Nile.

I think one of the problems with including Meroe is at least partially that it is on the very edge of the map. M2TW has the same province limit as RTW, so I sort of doubt that the EB team is going to remove 5 or 6 provinces from other parts of the map to put them all in one place at the very bottom of the map where most factions will never reach them.

[A Very Super Market]

Not enough culture slots.

Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.

[Phalanx300]

Well but Cherusci and Chatti are already in the Sweboz unit roster and cutting them would leve a hole in the already small roster.
Plus, we have no records about different germanic tribes in 272bc but even for later times, I wouldn't know how to tell them apart by anything else but their name and location. If you have literature about this subject, I'd be greatful if you posted it.

They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.

Their traditions, the Chatti would remove the hair in the face once they made their first kill and would remove and iron ring around their neck. The Cherusci were known for their swords(but I think this still means the spear is the main weapon especially if they used oversized spears in the first rank) and close shield walls.

[Foot]

Not enough culture slots.

Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.

No, we don't go cutting provinces somewhere else because we feel like want to include a new faction. otherwise we would go for india over Meroe. Wingsington III has it right, and so do you. There are many reasons that Meroe isn't included.

Foot

[-Praetor-]

If this was in response to my post, I hope you understand that I was agreeing with you and trying to explain the reasoning behind it... I hope I wasn't misunderstood.

No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.

There are like ten factions that we would prefer to incluide before the Maccabeans: the Cimbrians for instance, that ravaged through half of Europe, or the Yuezhi that flared the far east. But they are not making in because they appear too far from our starting year, even though they did shape this part of the world significantly.

The Maccabean kingdom didn't even do that.

[ziegenpeter]

They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.

I'm pretty sure, they are enabled by the native MIC.

No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.

As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?

[WinsingtonIII]

Not enough culture slots.

Wensington, the EB team doesn't hold gameplay over historical accuracy. If Meroe could have been better represented, a province would likely have been cut to make room for it.

Holding history over gameplay isn't the same as throwing gameplay out the window, AVSM. I think it would be somewhat against EB's policy of accurately and equally representing as many factions on the map as possible to take multiple provinces away from these factions and place them on the very edge of the map where they only benefit one faction, whose lands extend off the map anyways, and cannot be represented accurately due to this fact.

And yes, culture slots were another consideration, as Foot said, we were both right, I'm merely clarifying that I wasn't expecting anyone to put gameplay above history, but sometimes it has to be considered in order to preserve the historical accuracy of other factions.

No worries, I understood what you said. I was repying to the continuous lobby made to incluide a Maccabean kingdom 100 yers earlier than it even existed.

Exactly, I'm in full agreement with you there. I was merely making sure I didn't get on the bad-list as one of the lobbyists...

[bobbin]

As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?

Because we know it didn't exist in 272BC.

[Ludens]

As I wrote before: What do we know about the sweboz and casse around 272bc? Not much I think, but they were in. So why not a Maccabean kingdom?

Because it didn't exist at all in 272 BC? Jerusalem was at that point controlled by the Ptolemeans. Furthermore, although with hindsight it was very important from a religious perspective, at the time the Maccabean revolt was little more than a local uprising against Seleucid rule. They certainly weren't an expansionist faction, so why give a faction slot to them if they could just as well be simulated by independents?

[ziegenpeter]

OOOPS! I totally confused the Maccabean kingdom with Meroe... Mea culpa.
Of course a jewish faction would be inapropriated.

[Foot]

OOOPS! I totally confused the Maccabean kingdom with Meroe... Mea culpa.
Of course a jewish faction would be inapropriated.

Reasons why no Meroe (but please do try searching, as we cannot spend all our time answering the same questions over and over and over again).

1. No Culture Slot - Meroe are an Ethiopian faction, but they would look Arabian.
2. No Provinces - Most of Meroe and its expansion would be off the map. Edge factions are dodgy to begin with.

There are others, but they are not really necessary. The above is enough to express why Meroe aren't in EBII. Comparing the viability of Meroe to that of the Casse and the Sweboz is simplistic.

Foot

[athanaric]

They aren't a part of the Sweboz roster, you can conquer them and they become part of your regional roster.

For Swêboz, all Germanic units are recruitable from the factional MIC only.

I don't see Cherusci or Chatti in. They are too close to the Swêboz and general knowledge is kinda sketchy anyway. Well, Chatti perhaps. But I would much rather bet on a Celtic faction.

[ziegenpeter]

Reasons why no Meroe (but please do try searching, as we cannot spend all our time answering the same questions over and over and over again).

1. No Culture Slot - Meroe are an Ethiopian faction, but they would look Arabian.
2. No Provinces - Most of Meroe and its expansion would be off the map. Edge factions are dodgy to begin with.

There are others, but they are not really necessary. The above is enough to express why Meroe aren't in EBII. Comparing the viability of Meroe to that of the Casse and the Sweboz is simplistic.

Foot

Gotcha. I wasnt arguing FOR Meroe, because I dont care about them that much. I was just generally questioning, but I was also generally confused, so lets drop this

Athanaric, I do agree with you. Thats why I like to have a moding team with the same manner of working as the eb team, working on a mod about a time when germanic tribes were more distinguishable. (Migration period, for example).

[Apázlinemjó]

I hope an other faction (like Cyrene) will be included near to the Ptolemaic dynasty to bother them, because in most campaigns they don't really have enough playing mates and they become a superpower in the game in no time.

[resodan]

Fair enough, I'm not a mod developer, just a player. Still, Kush was more enduring than the Sabaea (itself something of a , and under Meroe they were more centralized than numerous other already included factions. That, AND most Kushite territory

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

would in-fact

be on the map, assuming it's the same boundaries as EB I. It'd be fair to say, furthermore, that we know Kush/Nubia better archaeologically and historically than we do NE Europe at this time, which is very well represented in terms of provinces.
Don't mean to be a thorn in your guys' side, also didn't realize there were more considerations than simply being on the map and being important at the time of the scenario start. I just thought the proposition was a fairly decent one. *swallows inordinate pride* Anyway, I'll let it rest and will still play the game regardless. Actually, I'm rather looking forward to it! :)

...would there be any chance of Nubian archers as mercenaries, at least...? :p

[Skullheadhq]

I think there are some nubian units as regionals in EBI, correct me if I'm wrong, I dont usually expand that far south.

[WinsingtonIII]

...would there be any chance of Nubian archers as mercenaries, at least...? :p

EB1 contains Ethiopian Swordsmen, Ethiopian Light Spearmen, Ethiopian Archers, and Ethiopian Medium Cavalry as regionals and at least some of them are mercenaries, so I'm assuming we will see these units in EB2 as well. I realize that technically these aren't Nubian units per se (who would have been located more in modern day Sudan, not Ethiopia), but they are fairly similar to the troops that would have been fielded by the Nubians, so you will probably be able to field Ethiopian Archers and maybe just roleplay that they are Nubians. You may even be able to change their name so that in your games they are called Nubian Archers (although I don't know what the native tongue name would be).

[Foot]

EB1 contains Ethiopian Swordsmen, Ethiopian Light Spearmen, Ethiopian Archers, and Ethiopian Medium Cavalry as regionals and at least some of them are mercenaries, so I'm assuming we will see these units in EB2 as well. I realize that technically these aren't Nubian units per se (who would have been located more in modern day Sudan, not Ethiopia), but they are fairly similar to the troops that would have been fielded by the Nubians, so you will probably be able to field Ethiopian Archers and maybe just roleplay that they are Nubians. You may even be able to change their name so that in your games they are called Nubian Archers (although I don't know what the native tongue name would be).

"The word 'Libya' means Africa, and so the majority of Africans came to be known as 'Libyans' to the Greeks. The major distinction that the Greeks made was when it came to colour. They generally referred to all negroid African populations as 'Ethiopians' and all others as 'Libyans'."

The Ethiopian units cover all the negroid African units in EBI, and will do so in EBII. I believe that, even still, there are some specific Nubian units that were open as regionals and particularly for Saba. I might be wrong.

Foot

[Moros]

Saba's doesn't get unique ethiopian/nubian troops. While they were certainly used by them, especially at latter times, they wouldn't look much different from other nubians. So they won't have unique troops, but they would have easier acces to them. But that's mostly because of their proximity.

[WinsingtonIII]

"The word 'Libya' means Africa, and so the majority of Africans came to be known as 'Libyans' to the Greeks. The major distinction that the Greeks made was when it came to colour. They generally referred to all negroid African populations as 'Ethiopians' and all others as 'Libyans'."

The Ethiopian units cover all the negroid African units in EBI, and will do so in EBII. I believe that, even still, there are some specific Nubian units that were open as regionals and particularly for Saba. I might be wrong.

Foot

Ah I see, that makes sense, I was merely going by the unit description for the Ethiopian units where it says this:

"Historically, ancient Ethiopia (encompassing modern day Eritrea and northern Ethiopia) was at this time made up of many smaller kingdoms that waged wars against each other, but also against any foreign invaders, like the Nubians, Hellenes and Sabaeans."

I took that to mean that these units were examples of troops fielded by the smaller Ethiopian kingdoms and that the Nubians would have used different troops. However it makes more sense that these are just general troops that account for both.

I searched both in-game, in the recruitment viewer, and on the EB webpage faction list, and there do not appear to be any specific Nubian units, even for Saba. Of course, Moros just mentioned that above me, but I searched before he posted that.

[burn_again]

I searched both in-game, in the recruitment viewer, and on the EB webpage faction list, and there do not appear to be any specific Nubian units, even for Saba.

Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any

[WinsingtonIII]

Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any

Interesting, I guess I just missed that one somehow.

[Moros]

Well there is a Nubian Light Spearman unit, it's not on the webpage but both in-game and in the recruitment viewer.
This one:

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any

Note that I was talking about EBII, and that I'm not talking about a nubian unit, but a unique nubian for the Sabaeans. The same is true for ethiopian units. Habashite mercenaries and troops were used in arabia, but there's no reason to believe they were unique in anyway, unlike special regiments of bedouins.

[Visarion]

What about the Odrysian kingdom, a union of Thracian tribes that endured between the 5th century BC and the 3rd century BC. Where was I thinking... that's before the timeline... my mistake!

[Cyclops]

Is the faction list panning out "by the numbers"? There was an earlier posy about the likely factions being linked to units in EB1 9yes I know the unit roster has been revamped, but it was a guide to the areas EB team members felt worthy of development and representation).

We have added Pergamum, Numidia and now Bosphorans. The latter two were foreshadowed by having significant units or suites of units in EB1 (just missing the cut because of the faction limit).

That criterion might get Indian and Ethiopian factions in, but its been explained that the culture limit sinks this.

Spots that have a suite of units almost amounting to a faction roster: Iran (as opposed to those Turanian Parthians) Thrace (including Gallo-Thrace), Iberia and Galatia. I guess Galatians are out, becuase they were not politically active in the EB era and turn up as mercs in the right faction rosters. There's a slim case for a couple of Iberian factions and/or Odrysians, and maybe a "persian successor" state.

Spots that have iconic factional units: Taras, Syracuse, Massillia, Bastarnae, Boii, Alpine Gauls. The last 3 have more "playability" in some ways, because they might be miore than one province and they might not be hemmed in on all sides by hostile giants. The possibility of another midnight isles faction looms: we know they were there, jusy nmot exactly who they were.

I only wish for a fish so juicy sweet, and a Mauryan chariot BG. What i'll get is a pretty good faction list

[hekk]

I guess Galatians are out, becuase they were not politically active in the EB era

I don't think thats quite correct, infact i think that in EB's period is only a few years away from the first days that the Gauls stepped on land of Galatia, and by this time I think they were allied with the Bithynians and also had some conflicts with the Seleukids.

So I don't think they should be dismissed now as of now.