New factions?

[Strategos Alexandros]

Agree about cares for historical accuracy but quantity over quality 'technology' won't lead anywhere good. After all EB2 is completly up to it team and that's great about it. What I'm trying to say that petty client states are perfect for mini-mod rather than huge project EB2 aims to.

Just out of interest, what faction would you suggest instead?

[bovi]

I'd be glad to see more diversification of already existed factions instead new ones....

So, none.

[Viking_Wårlord]

MORE GERMANIC FACTIONS!

Sorry but I had to...2 Germanic factions aren't enough, do at least 3.(You weren't bothered by doing 4Celtic factions!)

Support from Viking_Wårlord and I'm now going back to Ribe(finished raiding the eastern coast of England)

[Viking_Wårlord]

I also think a Jewish faction would be great but it wouldn't stick with the era I think...unless I'm wrong!

[Ludens]

MORE GERMANIC FACTIONS!

Sorry but I had to...2 Germanic factions aren't enough, do at least 3.(You weren't bothered by doing 4Celtic factions!)

I also think a Jewish faction would be great but it wouldn't stick with the era I think...unless I'm wrong!

Well, there was the Maccabean rebellion, but it's not going to be included because it occurred well after the starting-date and lasted just 20 years. They weren't world-conquering material either. As for the reasons why there are more Celtic factions: it's because the Celts were politically more sophisticated and therefore more likely to form an empire.

BTW, please don't double post. Use the edit button.

[Viking_Wårlord]

"it's because the Celts were politically more sophisticated and therefore more likely to form an empire."

False, Celts had no political structure....a part from being a tribe of course, the Celts were never united and more often hated themselves even more than they hated rome!

For what's of Germans, they did have a political structure as Tacitus describes a 'regular meeting of chieftains each time of the year'...he was then talking of the 'Þing'(or thing)...indeed a meeting that was used to put an end to wars between different tribes and to solve problems.
The Þing would be known as ÅlÞing to the Vikings, the Icelandic place of these meetings was called 'Þingvellir'...and it still is today.

So Germans did have a political structure...Sorry but you're wrong.

[Foot]

"it's because the Celts were politically more sophisticated and therefore more likely to form an empire."

False, Celts had no political structure....a part from being a tribe of course, the Celts were never united and more often hated themselves even more than they hated rome!

For what's of Germans, they did have a political structure as Tacitus describes a 'regular meeting of chieftains each time of the year'...he was then talking of the 'Þing'(or thing)...indeed a meeting that was used to put an end to wars between different tribes and to solve problems.
The Þing would be known as ÅlÞing to the Vikings, the Icelandic place of these meetings was called 'Þingvellir'...and it still is today.

So Germans did have a political structure...Sorry but you're wrong.

Actually you are wrong on both accounts. Ludens did not say that Germans did not have a political structure, he said that their political structure was less sophisticated.

Celts certainly did have a very complex political structure, the Aedui were ruled by a senate-like structure, as were many other tribes. The Galatians were ruled by four kings, which would have required a very complex constitution. The Gallic tribes would meet every year in the land of the Carnutes to discuss diplomacy under the auspices of the druidic council.

What we do lack on the Germans is detailed evidence (both textual and archaelogical) of the tribes during the beginning of our timeframe. It is only when tacticus reports on them that they really start entering the roman record, and that is some way after our start date.

Foot

[Viking_Wårlord]

Actually you are wrong on both accounts. Ludens did not say that Germans did not have a political structure, he said that their political structure was less sophisticated.

Celts certainly did have a very complex political structure, the Aedui were ruled by a senate-like structure, as were many other tribes. The Galatians were ruled by four kings, which would have required a very complex constitution. The Gallic tribes would meet every year in the land of the Carnutes to discuss diplomacy under the auspices of the druidic council.

What we do lack on the Germans is detailed evidence (both textual and archaelogical) of the tribes during the beginning of our timeframe. It is only when tacticus reports on them that they really start entering the roman record, and that is some way after our start date.

Foot

Celts had their 'rix' elected by the druidic council....druids were also charged of education,poetry and healing...their political influence was great>druids had knowledege,the others didn't!

We do not lack of evidence about Germanic political organization, what we lack is how we trust those who've written about their political strucutre because they were all Roman and may have exagerated their writings.


Though I was right about the Þing because we still find it in the republic of Iceland (the parliament is called 'ÅlÞing,check for yourself)!

[Foytaz]

Just out of interest, what faction would you suggest instead?

I think Hellenic world is fullfilled for good, already present ones are enough for now.
Numidia wouldn't be bad choice anyways as one of most important players in western afican coast, plus they outlived Carthage and have given couple of nasty surprises to Romans latter on in time.
Some people often mention second germanic basis faction, maybe that's good idea too.
And on the other hand if Pergamon is in already then why not add Syracuse f.e.???, lots of similarities don't you think???

[General Appo]

Numidia wouldn't be bad choice anyways as one of most important players in western afican coast, plus they outlived Carthage and have given couple of nasty surprises to Romans latter on in time.
Some people often mention second germanic basis faction, maybe that's good idea too.

Okay, that´s 2 factions, 8 to go. And remember, it can´t be Pergamon, or any faction in the Hellenic world at all.
Man, I´m just so excited to see where you´re gonna find place outside the Hellenic world to cramp in 8 new factions.

[Taliferno]

Okay, that´s 2 factions, 8 to go. And remember, it can´t be Pergamon, or any faction in the Hellenic world at all.
Man, I´m just so excited to see where you´re gonna find place outside the Hellenic world to cramp in 8 new factions.

Just off the top of my head:

1: Numidia (Western part)
2: Veneti
3: Caucasian Iberia
4: A Celtiberian tribe
5: Ulaid or Erain
6: Remanents of the Scythians
7: Belgi
8: Northern part of the Mauryan Empire
9: Illyrian tribe
10: A German Tribe

So yes, it is kind of possible to have 10 new non hellenic factions (though some hellenic influenced) in EB2, but its quite difficult sorting out which tribe was were in the time period or if they even existed yet. This is probably the reason why most of the guesses on this thread have been included a high proportion of hellenic factions as much information about what they were up to at the time is on the web.

If you think one or two people complaining about hellenic factions is bad, wait for the hundreds complaining about the "barbarians" (if the new factions included is like the one above)

I for one like hellenic factions though and hope a few are included. Also means they can share at least a few basic units from EB, leaving more room for new units in EB2.

[Conqueror]

1: Numidia (Western part)
2: Veneti
3: Caucasian Iberia
4: A Celtiberian tribe
5: Ulaid or Erain
6: Remanents of the Scythians
7: Belgi
8: Northern part of the Mauryan Empire
9: Illyrian tribe
10: A German Tribe

Keep in mind that these (not just some but all of them) should be both:

1. more powerful/influential than Pergamon at their peak during the timeframe and
2. with enough information available on them to be feasibly represented as factions,

in order to justify giving Pergamon the boot (going by Foytaz's argument that Pergamon wasn't significant enough to deserve a place in EBII).

[General Appo]

Indeed. If Pergamon was "just a petty client-state" then surely the Illyrians must be...well, utterly unimportant compared to Pergamon at least.

Btw, Mauryan empire will not be in because of reasons explained about 30,000 times.

[Foytaz]

Keep in mind that these (not just some but all of them) should be both:

1. more powerful/influential than Pergamon at their peak during the timeframe and
2. with enough information available on them to be feasibly represented as factions,

in order to justify giving Pergamon the boot (going by Foytaz's argument that Pergamon wasn't significant enough to deserve a place in EBII).

isn't number of provinces hardcoded actually???, so tell me prey how do you implement those Pergamon, Bosphorus and Gods know what else in Asia Mikra?, mind that Arche, Ptolemaioi, Makedonia and Pontus had their holdings as well. Doesn't it mean you'll have to merge other provinces to keep their numbers in balance according to 10 new hellenic factions???
It'd become EB - Hellenes instead of EB2 imo.

[Phalanx300]

The Provinces for alot of new factions are probably already there(in EB1 map). And also, how can these new factions not be 1 city factions? Enough factions of EB1 are. So you don't have to look out for the Province limit.

[Foytaz]

[QUOTE=General Appo;2063440Man, I´m just so excited to see where you´re gonna find place outside the Hellenic world to cramp in 8 new factions.[/QUOTE]

Go north and east and you'll find them. Lack of evidence about germanic tribes would be a problem thoug.