New factions?

[Majd il-Romani]

1-they are using the same provinces (almost), as in EB1-so the irish factions aren't a particularily good idea.
2-and Maurya would hardly show in EB2-you would have to extend the map east 9the EB team was very explicit IIRC; same map, bigger scale)
3-pergamon is already in, so no need for the maybe...
4-To my knowlege, the Cimbri & teutones were apparently celtic(which is strange, but not entirely impossible)

:

OK I understand the rest but still Parthia had like 3 provinces iirc in vanilla, no reason maurya can't be the same...

and whaddaya think of the rest of the ideas

[MeinPanzer]

I would really like to see the Yuezhi/Wusun as a faction. The idea of Steppe nomads with a culture that is closely related in language and dress to the ancient Celts and ancient Greeks would be an interesting addition.

The Yuezhi were not even slightly related in language and dress to the Celts and Greeks. The only relation at all was that Celtic, Greek, and Tocharian were all Indo-European, which is to say that they are not closely related at all. As far as dress is concerned, the only relation between the Celts, Greeks, and Yuezhi was that they all wore clothes.

Wusun would be a totally different matter, and even less closely related to western factions. All this is moot, though, as neither faction in its position c. 272 BC would be on the EB map.

[Meroveous]

The Yuezhi were one of the original factions in EB1 open beta, but where quickly replaced by the Saka. The problem was that they possibly weren't on EB's map at the starting date (although this is debatable) and in any case only became interested in the EB area a century or so later. The EB team has stated repeatedly that there will be no emerging factions, so they most likely won't be in EB2.

It's a pity, because I think they would have made a nice addition, but I can see where they are coming from. As for their relations to the Celts, I don't think I am qualified to comment.

Their material culture, as in use of plaids and conical hats for religious figures, was similar to the Celts. Their use of funerary masks was similar to the Greeks. Their centum language was quite distinct as the Indo-Iranians speak a satem language. So all of that would make them a unique faction in that region. The Tarim Basin (which is on the EB map).

As far as an emerging faction, they forced the Saka out of the Illi Valley and Lake Issyk Kul circa 175 BC, so they were a regional force with a distinct culture that was more urbanized than that of the Saka.

[Meroveous]

The Yuezhi were not even slightly related in language and dress to the Celts and Greeks. The only relation at all was that Celtic, Greek, and Tocharian were all Indo-European, which is to say that they are not closely related at all. As far as dress is concerned, the only relation between the Celts, Greeks, and Yuezhi was that they all wore clothes.

Wusun would be a totally different matter, and even less closely related to western factions. All this is moot, though, as neither faction in its position c. 272 BC would be on the EB map.

The use of conical hats and plaids was noted by professor Mair, head of East Asian studies at U Penn, as being something similar in dress to what the Celts wore. The funerary masks were seen by his team as also being reminiscent (sp) of Mycenaean (sp) culture. There are material similarities. As far as language all three groups speak a centum, as opposed to satem, languages, which are related albeit distantly.

The same professor Mair believes that the Wusun and Yuezhi were a very closely related people, and that their cultures probably became even closer following the Yuezhi migration. It might also explain why Pompeius Trogus associates the Asiani (Asin/Wusun) with the Tocharians (Tukhara) in his writings.

The Saka surround the Tarim Basin on the map, and that is where the Yuezhi and Wusun were located before the former ousted the Saka from Issyk Kul in 175 BC.

[MeinPanzer]

Their material culture, as in use of plaids and conical hats for religious figures, was similar to the Celts. Their use of funerary masks was similar to the Greeks. Their centum language was quite distinct as the Indo-Iranians speak a satem language. So all of that would make them a unique faction in that region. The Tarim Basin (which is on the EB map).

The use of conical hats and plaids was noted by professor Mair, head of East Asian studies at U Penn, as being something similar in dress to what the Celts wore. The funerary masks were seen by his team as also being reminiscent (sp) of Mycenaean (sp) culture. There are material similarities. As far as language all three groups speak a centum, as opposed to satem, languages, which are related albeit distantly.

Firstly, the Tarim mummies that have been found wearing clothing decorated in plaid patterns date to well before the EB timeframe (some 400 years or more earlier), and their identification as Yuezhi or the ancestors of the Yuezhi is highly speculative. Secondly, even if those mummies could be identified with certainty as Yuezhi, their wearing plaid does not in any way connect them to the Celts. Thirdly, what conical caps were worn by Celts? As for the funerary masks, that connects them as much with China as it does with Greece. Tocharian was an Indo-European language, so it was closely related to the Iranian languages spoken by the other steppe nomads and would not be that unique (plus we know very, very little about it during the EB timeframe). Finally, only a portion of the Tarim basin is represented on the EB map, and like with the Indians, the Yuezhi and Wusun would not be able to be properly represented on the map as they were located c. 272 BC.

As far as an emerging faction, they forced the Saka out of the Illi Valley and Lake Issyk Kul circa 175 BC, so they were a regional force with a distinct culture that was more urbanized than that of the Saka.

I don't know about being more urbanized, but yes, they were a distinct culture and a regional force, as were the Mauryan Indians, but like the Indians, it simply isn't feasible for them to be implemented in EBII.

The same professor Mair believes that the Wusun and Yuezhi were a very closely related people, and that their cultures probably became even closer following the Yuezhi migration. It might also explain why Pompeius Trogus associates the Asiani (Asin/Wusun) with the Tocharians (Tukhara) in his writings.

We know so little about the Yuezhi and the Wusun that we can't even say with any certainty who they were ethnically and culturally, let alone how similar or different they became over time.

[Ludens]

OK I understand the rest but still Parthia had like 3 provinces iirc in vanilla, no reason maurya can't be the same...

and whaddaya think of the rest of the ideas

This not vanilla. A Maurean satrapy has been mentioned as a candidate, but the Maurean empire as a whole is definitely out. The EB map contains only a small part of the Maurean Empire. That empire was also focused on the rest of India, not the EB map. There is no way the challenges and expansion of this faction can be realistically simulated on the current map set-up.

As for the other ideas, the Arrevaci (Celt-Iberians) and Numidians are safe bets. Chances on an Illyrian faction and the Belgae are also good. The rest however are unlikely: the Scyths were in decline and being pushed away by the Sarmatians. I would love to see the Bastarnae, but their inclusion has been denied repeatedly. We may see the Bosporean Kingdom in the same area however. Germans are possible, although even the German FC has admitted the inclusion of the Sweboz was a bit of stretch. They weren't particularly sophisticated in 272 BC and with the exception of the Suebi did not operate above tribe level. The Teutons are IIRC rather obscure to: we'd be more likely to see the Cimbri or the Cherusii. There certainly are not going to be four factions on the British isles. Erain (the pre-Goidelic Irish) have been mentioned as a candidate a couple of times, but not recently. Ranika favoured the Brigantes, but that was the last we heard from them.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

There's been some talk about either the Boii or the Lugii as well, to fill up the vast area of Eleutheroi provinces in eastern europe, as well. And some very subtle hints about some eastern faction. This could however refer to the Mauryan Satrapy which Ludens mentioned.
The fact that someone from the team also hinted that there would be two new factions in the saba/cathage cuture group, seems to imply that there will, apart from thye rayther plausible numidian faction also be another, Mauretania, perhaps... or maybe Nabateans. However, if there are to be 10 or 9 new factions, there must be yet more surprises waiting for us in the shadows...
But this is all just guesswork.

Gaaahhh!
EB team; Deliver me from this agony and reveal your factions!!!

(Just kidding!)

[paullus]

The fact that someone from the team also hinted that there would be two new factions in the saba/cathage cuture group, seems to imply that there will, apart from thye rayther plausible numidian faction also be another, Mauretania, perhaps... or maybe Nabateans.

Who dared give that away??? Now you know about Nubia!!! Or was it Cyrenaica?

MP: the bit on the pointy hats is probably in reference to the Halstatt period golden conical hats. That's one heck of a huge stretch, but I'd guess that's what Mair was thinking of--either that or he was talking out of the whole between his cheeks.

EDIT: and guys, in case y'all were wondering, we haven't even settled on all the new factions...so make your cases, we're definitely still listening. we're also working on the map...

[Meroveous]

Firstly, the Tarim mummies that have been found wearing clothing decorated in plaid patterns date to well before the EB timeframe (some 400 years or more earlier), and their identification as Yuezhi or the ancestors of the Yuezhi is highly speculative. Secondly, even if those mummies could be identified with certainty as Yuezhi, their wearing plaid does not in any way connect them to the Celts. Thirdly, what conical caps were worn by Celts? As for the funerary masks, that connects them as much with China as it does with Greece. Tocharian was an Indo-European language, so it was closely related to the Iranian languages spoken by the other steppe nomads and would not be that unique (plus we know very, very little about it during the EB timeframe). Finally, only a portion of the Tarim basin is represented on the EB map, and like with the Indians, the Yuezhi and Wusun would not be able to be properly represented on the map as they were located c. 272 BC.



I don't know about being more urbanized, but yes, they were a distinct culture and a regional force, as were the Mauryan Indians, but like the Indians, it simply isn't feasible for them to be implemented in EBII.



We know so little about the Yuezhi and the Wusun that we can't even say with any certainty who they were ethnically and culturally, let alone how similar or different they became over time.

I never said they were Celts. I said their culture is a related one, as are all Indo-European cultures, and the conical hats were found in France, I believe, and are believed to have been used by priests.

As far as language, no they are more closely related to Celtic, Greek, Italic or Germanic as those are centum as opposed to satem languages, the Indo-Iranians speak a satem language and Tocharian is a centum language.

We are actually not as woefully ignorant about them as you make it seem. The Chinese had written about them extensively, and as China has become more open we have learned much more about them as an ethnic group. Their culture is still a bit of a mystery, but the Chinese and Trogus tied them to the trading cities encircling the Taklamakan desert.

True only part of the Tarim is seen on the map. However if the map is expanded, considering the Americas would be gone, the entire Tarim could be included and the Saka removed from Issyk Kul and placed further west by the Illi Valley, which is a bit more accurate.

[Foot]

True only part of the Tarim is seen on the map. However if the map is expanded, considering the Americas would be gone, the entire Tarim could be included and the Saka removed from Issyk Kul and placed further west by the Illi Valley, which is a bit more accurate.

The EBI map has 199 provinces. M2TW maximum allowed provinces is 199. We cannot include anymore, regardless of america being gone or not.

Foot

[MeinPanzer]

I never said they were Celts. I said their culture is a related one, as are all Indo-European cultures, and the conical hats were found in France, I believe, and are believed to have been used by priests.

Plaid clothing, conical hats, and death masks are aspects of material culture that can and do appear independently in different cultures simply because they are basic concepts. These do not make their cultures related, even if those mummies could be identified as Yuezhi.

We are actually not as woefully ignorant about them as you make it seem. The Chinese had written about them extensively, and as China has become more open we have learned much more about them as an ethnic group. Their culture is still a bit of a mystery, but the Chinese and Trogus tied them to the trading cities encircling the Taklamakan desert.

The problems is that many declarations are made about linking archaeological finds to ethnic groups, like the Yuezhi, but this is difficult with sedentary groups in a region like the Tarim basin where different groups mixed, let alone a group like the Yuezhi who moved quite a bit. They are still very mysterious, and what little the Chinese have written about them in the Shiji and the Hanshu is enlightening but often lacking in details.

[Turnus]

and guys, in case y'all were wondering, we haven't even settled on all the new factions...so make your cases, we're definitely still listening.

Hmm really? In that case I think I'll a present a few factions that have been talked about very little (obviously I have no idea if they have already been accepted or rejected by the team):

The Treveri (also have various alternate names in both Latin and Greek):

These would be a Celto-Germanic tribe situated between the Sweboz and the current Gallic factions. They would thus have access to both Germanic units and Celtic units, and were in particular famed for their cavalry (in De Bello Gallico). Their victory conditions could be all of Gaul and Germany. They would be a good inclusion for their variety of units, both Celtic and Germanic, and would hinder the expansion of the Sweboz. Including them would also mean that you are adding a new Celtic faction and a new Germanic faction without taking up 2 faction slots! Of course, some may say the Belgae do it better, but I assume they are already in...

The Insubres:

This would be an exclusively Cisalpine Celtic faction (at the start of the game that is). This would mean that the Aedui would lose Mediolanum (as it was the Insubrian capital), and thus would focus more on Gaul itself (this is more accurate also?). The Cisalpine Gauls were particuarly troublesome to the Italic peoples, and would be very enjoyable to play (I say this while playing an Aedui campaign in which I moved all my forces into Italy at the start of the game, abandoning Transalpine Gaul). Their victory conditions could be all of Italy (and the islands), Sicily, Southern Gaul, and the city of Carthage. As they conquer Italy, they gain access to a whole new unit roster, including mixed Celtic-Hellenic infantry. The best part of playing a barbarian faction is smashing up the civilised factions and adopting their more developed arms and technology, which is why I also suggest the next faction:

Tylis:

Although their expedition into Greece was defeated in 279, and they were again beaten by Antigonos Monopthalamos soon after, these Celts continued to expand into Thrace, and could be preparing for another invasion of Greece. Their migration into this area caused great changes, and the player could continue this migration further. Their unit roster would be extremely varied, with Celtic, Thracian, Hellenic, and Scythian units in the immediate area. Their victory conditions could be all of Thrace, Illyria, Greece and the Aegean, and Asia Minor from the Aegean to Galatia. They were conquered in 212 BCE, but so was Carthage (realistically), only ten years after that date.


The inclusion of these factions would not take up many unit/model/building slots. Each of these factions was more historically important (and I think would be more enjoyable to play) than factions such as the Casse or the Saba, which will nevertheless remain in EBII. All of these factions would provide different playing experiences to those of every other faction in the game (which is more than can be said for Epeiros/Makedonia/KH or Aedui/Arverni or Ptolemaioi/AS), and thus are all important additions to EBII for both historical accuracy and gameplay.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

EDIT: and guys, in case y'all were wondering, we haven't even settled on all the new factions...so make your cases, we're definitely still listening. we're also working on the map...

I can't believe you gyus still listen to us after 25 pages of Meroe, Mauryans and Bartix, but if this is still the case, I'll have a go at it.'

I have compiled this from varius sources, primarily encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica, NE (swedish), and some Wikipedia too, although I'm not to fond of it. I've also used some other works of reference concerning ancient warfare and geography. And then, of cource, Herodotos!

So, here goes:

Cappadocia

Cappadocia was incorporated into the realm of Perdiccas ca. 322 b.C, having been left relatively untouched by Alexander the Great.
However, after the defeat of Perdiccas’s Anatolian forces by Antigonos, the descendants of the earlier satrap of Cappadocia, Ariarathes, were soon reinstated as rulers of the southern part of the region, i.e. Kappadokia, not Kappadokia Pontika, which became the kingdom of Pontus.
The kingdom of Cappadocia would remain under the same dynasty for ca 200 years, and most kings were named Ariarathes.
After the battle of Ipsos in 301 b.C, the Cappadocian kings were forced to accept Seleucid Overlordship, but still remained fairly autonomous.

In 272 b.C, the ruler of Cappadocia was named Ariamnes II. He seems to have received further autonomy around 270 b.C, as, sometime after 250 b.C, his son, Ariarathes III assumed the title of King.
The Cappadocian kings remained relatively Seleucid-friendly until the defeat of Antiochos III at Magnesia in 190 b.C, after which the Cappadocian kings shifted their allegiance to the Romans.
During the 3rd and 2nd century b.C. they were regularly involved in the wars of the region, particularly against Pontos, and they were members of several alliances formed during the period.

After Ariarathes VII was murdered around 100 b.C, (apparently on the orders of Mithradathes VI Eupator of Pontus), a Pontic puppet ruler was appointed. During the following tumult in Anatolia, Cappadocia came under Pontic, Armenian, and ultimately, Roman control, though still ruled by puppet kings, loyal to the Romans.
However, after the last of these kings, Archelaos, Emperor Tiberius incorporated Cappadocia into the Roman Empire (ca. 17 A.D.).
Apparently, the Cappadocian kings inscribed the years of reign on their coins, making it easier to reconstruct their line of kings.

Kings of Cappadocia during the EB time frame in chronological order (according to Wikipedia):

• Ariamnes II 280-230 BCE
• Ariarathes III 255-220 BCE
• Ariarathes IV Eusebes 220-163 BCE
• Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator 163-130 BCE
• Orophernes 157 BCE
• Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator 130-116 BCE
• Ariarathes VII Philometor 116-101 BCE
• Ariarathes VIII 101-96 BCE
• Ariarathes IX ca. 95 BCE
• Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios 95-ca. 63 BCE
• Ariobarzanes II Philopator ca. 63-51 BCE
• Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philoromaios 51-42 BCE
• Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos 42-36 BCE
• Archelaus 36 BCE-17 AD

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Cappadocia"

A possible unit rooster for the Cappadocians would include some cavalry, as Cappadocia was famous for its horses. One could consider the “Cappadocian Cavalry” unit already available to Pontos, and perhaps some lighter, skirmisher-type cavalry. Otherwise, the Cappadocians would have a primarily “eastern” unit rooster with some Persian and native Anatolian units, though influenced by Hellenic military traditions. They would also have rather easy access to both Galatian and Scythian auxiliaries.
The only description of Cappadocian warriors that I have found comes from Herodotos, in his description of the army of Xerxes during his European campaign. This is of course a description of a typical Cappadocian warrior some 200 years before the EB era, but it might still convey some rudimentary ideas of what the Cappadocians looked like.
According to Herodotos they carried the same armament as the Paphlagonians, i.e. short spears, small shields, and “plaited” helmets (however that works). In addition, they also carried javelins and
daggers. Apparantly, they also wore traditional boots.

Gameplay-wise, the Cappadocians would begin with only one settlement; Mazaka. From here, they would have the choice of either advancing eastwards or westwards.
Should they go eastwards into Syria or the lower Caucasus, this would give them access to some better Persian-style units, and Scythians (and eventually some Hellenic units), but would most likely bring them into conflict with the Seleucids, Hayasdan and possibly even the Phalava, should they advance beyond Mesopotamia.
Should they go westwards, on the other hand, they would quickly get access to powerful Galatian units, but this would bring them into conflict with the numerous minor kingdoms in western Anatolia, such as Pontos, Pergamon and maybe even Makedonia. The Seleucids would be a constant threat in this direction too, but their Anatolian possessions might be an easier prey than their eastern heartlands.

Still, there are negative sides to this faction as well. Compared to many other contemporary kingdoms, their area of influence was somewhat limited, and even though their kings at times showed a will to expand (gaining influence over, for example, Cilicia, even though temporarily), they never managed to build any greater “empire”. One of the reasons for this might be that for much of their history, they were under either Seleucid or Roman vassalage.
Also, their position is a very dangerous one, locked between the Hai, AS, Ptolemaioi, and Pontos, and very close to the heartlands of the “Grey Death”.

Still, I think that they would make an interesting addition to EB, as they were obviously active during the period, and are rather easy to find information on.
As always, I do stress that this is just a suggestion, and the EB-team is free to ignor this, if they so wish.

[Che Roriniho]

I can't believe you gyus still listen to us after 25 pages of Meroe, Mauryans and Bartix, but if this is still the case, I'll have a go at it.'

I have compiled this from varius sources, primarily encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica, NE (swedish), and some Wikipedia too, although I'm not to fond of it. I've also used some other works of reference concerning ancient warfare and geography. And then, of cource, Herodotos!

So, here goes:

Cappadocia

Cappadocia was incorporated into the realm of Perdiccas ca. 322 b.C, having been left relatively untouched by Alexander the Great.
However, after the defeat of Perdiccas’s Anatolian forces by Antigonos, the descendants of the earlier satrap of Cappadocia, Ariarathes, were soon reinstated as rulers of the southern part of the region, i.e. Kappadokia, not Kappadokia Pontika, which became the kingdom of Pontus.
The kingdom of Cappadocia would remain under the same dynasty for ca 200 years, and most kings were named Ariarathes.
After the battle of Ipsos in 301 b.C, the Cappadocian kings were forced to accept Seleucid Overlordship, but still remained fairly autonomous.

In 272 b.C, the ruler of Cappadocia was named Ariamnes II. He seems to have received further autonomy around 270 b.C, as, sometime after 250 b.C, his son, Ariarathes III assumed the title of King.
The Cappadocian kings remained relatively Seleucid-friendly until the defeat of Antiochos III at Magnesia in 190 b.C, after which the Cappadocian kings shifted their allegiance to the Romans.
During the 3rd and 2nd century b.C. they were regularly involved in the wars of the region, particularly against Pontos, and they were members of several alliances formed during the period.

After Ariarathes VII was murdered around 100 b.C, (apparently on the orders of Mithradathes VI Eupator of Pontus), a Pontic puppet ruler was appointed. During the following tumult in Anatolia, Cappadocia came under Pontic, Armenian, and ultimately, Roman control, though still ruled by puppet kings, loyal to the Romans.
However, after the last of these kings, Archelaos, Emperor Tiberius incorporated Cappadocia into the Roman Empire (ca. 17 A.D.).
Apparently, the Cappadocian kings inscribed the years of reign on their coins, making it easier to reconstruct their line of kings.

Kings of Cappadocia during the EB time frame in chronological order (according to Wikipedia):

• Ariamnes II 280-230 BCE
• Ariarathes III 255-220 BCE
• Ariarathes IV Eusebes 220-163 BCE
• Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator 163-130 BCE
• Orophernes 157 BCE
• Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator 130-116 BCE
• Ariarathes VII Philometor 116-101 BCE
• Ariarathes VIII 101-96 BCE
• Ariarathes IX ca. 95 BCE
• Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios 95-ca. 63 BCE
• Ariobarzanes II Philopator ca. 63-51 BCE
• Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philoromaios 51-42 BCE
• Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos 42-36 BCE
• Archelaus 36 BCE-17 AD

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Cappadocia"

A possible unit rooster for the Cappadocians would include some cavalry, as Cappadocia was famous for its horses. One could consider the “Cappadocian Cavalry” unit already available to Pontos, and perhaps some lighter, skirmisher-type cavalry. Otherwise, the Cappadocians would have a primarily “eastern” unit rooster with some Persian and native Anatolian units, though influenced by Hellenic military traditions. They would also have rather easy access to both Galatian and Scythian auxiliaries.
The only description of Cappadocian warriors that I have found comes from Herodotos, in his description of the army of Xerxes during his European campaign. This is of course a description of a typical Cappadocian warrior some 200 years before the EB era, but it might still convey some rudimentary ideas of what the Cappadocians looked like.
According to Herodotos they carried the same armament as the Paphlagonians, i.e. short spears, small shields, and “plaited” helmets (however that works). In addition, they also carried javelins and
daggers. Apparantly, they also wore traditional boots.

Gameplay-wise, the Cappadocians would begin with only one settlement; Mazaka. From here, they would have the choice of either advancing eastwards or westwards.
Should they go eastwards into Syria or the lower Caucasus, this would give them access to some better Persian-style units, and Scythians (and eventually some Hellenic units), but would most likely bring them into conflict with the Seleucids, Hayasdan and possibly even the Phalava, should they advance beyond Mesopotamia.
Should they go westwards, on the other hand, they would quickly get access to powerful Galatian units, but this would bring them into conflict with the numerous minor kingdoms in western Anatolia, such as Pontos, Pergamon and maybe even Makedonia. The Seleucids would be a constant threat in this direction too, but their Anatolian possessions might be an easier prey than their eastern heartlands.

Still, there are negative sides to this faction as well. Compared to many other contemporary kingdoms, their area of influence was somewhat limited, and even though their kings at times showed a will to expand (gaining influence over, for example, Cilicia, even though temporarily), they never managed to build any greater “empire”. One of the reasons for this might be that for much of their history, they were under either Seleucid or Roman vassalage.
Also, their position is a very dangerous one, locked between the Hai, AS, Ptolemaioi, and Pontos, and very close to the heartlands of the “Grey Death”.

Still, I think that they would make an interesting addition to EB, as they were obviously active during the period, and are rather easy to find information on.
As always, I do stress that this is just a suggestion, and the EB-team is free to ignor this, if they so wish.

I'd like to have a go with these. they sound quite interesting, like a Numidia in the East. Small, surrounded by tricky peeps, but certainly fun. I'm placing a wager on Numidia and the Boii to be included, along with the Bosphoron Kingdom. I've said before, but I'll say again, the Lugii (Vandals). These not only fill a gap (The Baltic), but there would be a nice josting in Eastern Europe between them, Swezboz, and the Boii. This would also prevent any one of them becoming super-powerful. If not the Boii, then maybe the Helvetii?

[Ibrahim]

I'd like to have a go with these. they sound quite interesting, like a Numidia in the East. Small, surrounded by tricky peeps, but certainly fun. I'm placing a wager on Numidia and the Boii to be included, along with the Bosphoron Kingdom. I've said before, but I'll say again, the Lugii (Vandals). These not only fill a gap (The Baltic), but there would be a nice josting in Eastern Europe between them, Swezboz, and the Boii. This would also prevent any one of them becoming super-powerful. If not the Boii, then maybe the Helvetii?

but wouldn't the place be kind of congested in Anatolia? I mean with 2-4 small kingdoms in one area, gameplay wise may be too quick for most tastes..who knows? i gather by my family and immediate friends.
now a bosphoran kingdom would be nice, but I will wait and see what the EB team will come up with next.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

but wouldn't the place be kind of congested in Anatolia?

Indeed it would be, which is one of the downsides with this faction. However, they would not reduce the amount of eleutheroi territory in anatolia, as the province Kappadokia is currently owned by the AS, so there would still be ample space to expand without having to start a war with another faction.
To the west, there is galatia and Bithynia, while to the east, they have lesser Armenia and Pontos Parlaios (sp?).

[Majd il-Romani]

EDIT: and guys, in case y'all were wondering, we haven't even settled on all the new factions...so make your cases, we're definitely still listening. we're also working on the map...

OK well since there are 9 factions left with the confirmation of Pergamon:

1: the Scythians (I still think this could be possible, a kind of "regain your old glory" campaign) so the sarmatians can be countered and don't start invading Germany, Armenia, and Greece all at once by 190BC
OR the Bosporan Kingdom for the same reason as Scythians, plus the NE map needs more factions

2: The Belgae as a counter to both Gauls and Suebi
OR even more interesting a Celto-Germanic culture

3: another British tribe to counter the Casse like maybe the Erain or Caledonians, it'd be pretty cool to have this little war going on between 2 factions over the 2 islands

4: the Nabataean kingdom to help stop the yellow and grey deaths

5: A Mauryan Satrapy (NOT THE WHOLE DAMN EMPIRE, just a small satrapy I meant)

6: an celt-Iberian faction to rival Lusitanians and Carthaginians

7 & 8: the 2 Numidian Kingdoms to populate Africa and fight Carthage as well as each other

9: Nubians to help stop yellow death

Whaddaya think about the new and revised list? As you can see I'm not that big of a fan of the tiny Greek city-states (Syracuse, Cyrene, etc)

[abou]

If you think that a Nabataia could do much of anything to stop the Seleukids or the Ptolemies in a TW game, then you are delusional. Same for the Nubians.

[Krusader]

If you think that a Nabataia could do much of anything to stop the Seleukids or the Ptolemies in a TW game, then you are delusional. Same for the Nubians.

You'd work great as a diplomat

Although, I agree. With the TW engine it would be hard to make Nubians and Nabataians to have a chance against AS & Ptolemaioi, mostly due to supply lines and not that "good hit & run game mechanics". Ptolemaioi would be able to reach most modern Jordan/northwest Saudi-Arabian territories in one turn (especially if city hopping), making it difficult for trait morale penalties to kick in. Nubia...well an educated guess says that their unarmoured troops wouldnt fare that well against the Ptolemaioi either, as the Ptolemaioi would be able to send stacks down and since climate isn't properly represented it would be onesided (Thorakitai VS Nubian warriors in loincloth).

[Majd il-Romani]

If you think that a Nabataia could do much of anything to stop the Seleukids or the Ptolemies in a TW game, then you are delusional. Same for the Nubians.

well they did manage to hold off until Trajan's rein...

but I agree on Nubia

[Son of Perun]

If you think that a Nabataia could do much of anything to stop the Seleukids or the Ptolemies in a TW game, then you are delusional. Same for the Nubians.

I can't agree with this. During gameplay Saba often captures Ethiopia by rebellion and in my experience the Ptolemaioi are not able to conquer it back. Nabatea/Nubia/Cyrene would give more balance to the area (the Seleucids have to fight on about 5 fronts, the Ptolemies only on one)

[Tellos Athenaios]

well they did manage to hold off until Trajan's rein...

but I agree on Nubia

But you forgot to take into account the crucial part of his sentence: in a TW game... Possible, to survive? Well, that's what it's a TW game for; so yes. But likely? No. It took a few rather nasty armies to keep Baktria, Pahlava and Pontos in the race in 1.x ...

[Ibrahim]

well, I'll just wait and see. the wger lines are drawn, and I plan to win (no, wger-lines have nothing to do with "wagers(bets)"). its a form of debate really.

@ mithridates: I'm still a little uncertain. but since you reminded me of the fact thatr kappadocia is in what is now EB1.1 seleukid terrtory, then i guess it should work.

[Space_Ed]

I'd like to see Syracuse as a faction. I'm sure you guys can work it out so that Syracuse isn't expansionistic but Syracuse was definately a lot more than an insignificant city. They had different alliances with Rome, Carthage etc and I am pretty sure that it was a big trading city. Also I think some Archemedian weapons would be brilliant.

Belgians

Numidians

Insubres

Another British faction

Galatians

Celtiberians

That leaves two more...

[Majd il-Romani]

But you forgot to take into account the crucial part of his sentence: in a TW game... Possible, to survive? Well, that's what it's a TW game for; so yes. But likely? No. It took a few rather nasty armies to keep Baktria, Pahlava and Pontos in the race in 1.x ...

ya your right either yellow death or saba take nabataia around like 245BC so maybe nabatu wouldn't be such a good idea unless maybe they can get phalanxes/estern units, kind of a mix of AS, ptolmey, jewish, and arabian units and also make tham very expansionist so thay at least manage to maintain a small power base in judaea/syria/arabia/whatever

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

@ mithridates: I'm still a little uncertain. but since you reminded me of the fact thatr kappadocia is in what is now EB1.1 seleukid terrtory, then i guess it should work.

Yes, I think it would. Also, it would make the situation in eastern anatolia a bit more interesting too: not just a pushing-match between AS and the Ptolemaioi, with Pontos making occational insurrections from the north. This, plus the fact that there are already quite a few units that could make up their unit rooster in-game, so they would not take up so many unit-slots, could actually make them a candidate for a faction. The EB-team might think otherwise, though. I am, after all, by no means an expert on Cappadocia, so my research is somewhat rudimetary and there might be other conditions, that I have overlooked, which would make them unfit for this purpose.

On the issue of Nabatea: Sure, they might gain controll of Nabatea and Sinai, which would give them a power base to build on. However, as they are primarily focused on light troops, they might be a fun challenge to play for a human player, but the AI would probably need a lot of financial and military help, to be able to survive, given that they will have to fight a two-front war against both ptollies and AS, with merely light arabian levies. Especially the Ptolemaioi, as they have their backs covered, and thus can concentrate all thier forces in the levant.

[Jolt]

If you think that a Nabataia could do much of anything to stop the Seleukids or the Ptolemies in a TW game, then you are delusional. Same for the Nubians.

Meroe AND the AS could do a better job at stopping the Ptolies than just the AS. Same goes for Nabataea. Meroe could actually build full stack armies which the Eleutheroi can't. While Meroe would have a one front war to dedicate all it's cannon fodder to, the Ptolies would have to take care of the AS as well as Meroe, and if they couldn't do it quickly, then there would be the possibility of having Carthage up their legs for a three front war. As for Nabataea, I'm not sure how it would turn out.

[abou]

Dude, really? I mean, really? What could Meroe do that a few rebel cities couldn't? The AI is a bit smarter in M2TW than in RTW. Meroe wouldn't attack a strong Ptolemaic kingdom, but you better believe that the latter would attack the former. Even at their weakest Egypt could mobilize thousands upon thousands of troops in emergencies. Besides, do you know what type of troops Meroe would have? Yeah, try sending some spearmen with wicker shields against a phalanx.

I don't mean to be a dick, but when I keep seeing the same factions mentioned again and again that have already been shot down it gets old. At least Nabataia has some viability. Meroe has none. They are so below the military horizon it isn't even funny. It would be like when Poland sent a cavalry force against German tanks.

[Che Roriniho]

Dude, really? I mean, really? What could Meroe do that a few rebel cities couldn't? The AI is a bit smarter in M2TW than in RTW. Meroe wouldn't attack a strong Ptolemaic kingdom, but you better believe that the latter would attack the former. Even at their weakest Egypt could mobilize thousands upon thousands of troops in emergencies. Besides, do you know what type of troops Meroe would have? Yeah, try sending some spearmen with wicker shields against a phalanx.

I don't mean to be a dick, but when I keep seeing the same factions mentioned again and again that have already been shot down it gets old. At least Nabataia has some viability. Meroe has none. They are so below the military horizon it isn't even funny. It would be like when Poland sent a cavalry force against German tanks.

Hear hear. Shame though. If we could have unlimited factions, Meroe WOULD be fun to play, but as far as Historical Accuracy is concerned, it's bullshit.

Boii and Numidians of somesort would be almost needed. Numidians would need reforms (possibly March of Time) for when that roman centurian (foret the name) went over to train them. I would actually love to ply them (but not before playing the new Makedon, Baktria, and Romanoi!)

[Son of Perun]

What could Meroe do that a few rebel cities couldn't?

Same goes for Saba, Casse...such argument has no logic.

I don't mean to be a dick, but when I keep seeing the same factions mentioned again and again that have already been shot down it gets old. At least Nabataia has some viability. Meroe has none. They are so below the military horizon it isn't even funny. It would be like when Poland sent a cavalry force against German tanks.

It would be interesting to hear why Nabataia has more viability than Meroe, afaik it was kingdom weaker to Kushite kingdom in all aspects whether it comes to population, military or wealth. I understand that some members of EB team might be a bit tired of this issue but that does not approve them to speak about Kushites like they were a bunch of dirty african savages. They were in fact more developed than some of the factions currently in EB. I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2, but it is mostly due to engine restrictions and not their "viability".

Sorry to say that but Meroe is going to be mentioned again and again considering how uncertain the facts about Meroe are and the number of people who would like to play as such an exotic faction.