New factions?

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

*sigh*

There are loads of possible factions (bithynia, Odrysiai, cappadocia, mauretania, Aitolian leauge, Atropatene, Caucasian Iberia, whatever) that have recieved marginal, if any, attention in this thread. Meanwhile, Meroë, Muryans, Yuhezi, Caledonians and their likes are suggested over and over again, despite the fact that the EB-team explicitly has declared that they will not be included.

So, please: Make your suggestions (preferably motivated by facts), discuss their viability gameplay-wise/History-wise, make examples for their unit-roosters...
...but for the love of god, leave the Nubians to their destiny!!!

No offense, people, but its getting repetitive...

[Foot]

This is a Faction suggestion thread. If you want to discuss Meroe I suggest you find somewhere else to do so.

No one on the EB team has suggested that they were african savages, but we've had enough of people bringing them up on these boards.

Foot

[Sir Edward]

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.

Okay so I personally am fed up with your whining and moaning, maybe the moderators will delete this post but I got to get it off my chest.
You wonder why Nabataia is being talked about and Meroe is not being considered? It's because TA let slip (red herring (?)) that there will be four factions in the culture that presently contains Carthage and Saba. Nabataia would fall into this grouping Meroe wouldn't even come close. While I personally wouldn't include either in my top 10 wish list there it is. Foot stated point blank in post #280 of this thread that due to culture restrictions Meroe could never be presented properly. Its not about military makeup or in game survival or the map lacking regions where they would historically likely to expand. What it come down to is if you want to see Meroe presented as having a ruling light skin family. Is that how you wish Meroe to be presented because with the culture limits that what you would end up with?

And as far as the large number of people you claim wanting to play this faction a search through this very thread can only find 15 people who are willing to voice this opinion of including in the 10 new factions slot Meroe/Kush/Axum/Nubia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Majid-il Romani, dominique, subutan, Jolt, Abou!, Aztec Warrior, Jiulius, brymht, Maksimus, Monte66, Son of Purin, The Abyssinian, Arris_Aurelius_Magnus, azzbaz, PseRamesses.

And amongst those 15 almost half of those are from accounts, six in fact, that have posted less than 25 times in the forums. And while a couple of these may be legitimate accounts that deserve to have their thoughts heard, the vast majority appear to be puppet accounts or trolls & their real purpose should be questioned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Subutan (3), Abou! (2), Aztec Warior (24), Jiulius (4), the Abyssinian (3), Arris_Aurelius_Magnus (3).

There are in fact more posts in this thread ruling out the inclusion of Meroe than there are people who have posted wanting them. So I am really at a loss where you are coming from with "how uncertain the facts about Meroe are", they are very certain it isn't going to be included as a faction in EBII.

[Megas Methuselah]

It's probably already been suggested, but Massalia would be sweet. Of course, this is most unlikely, as there probably isn't a lot of historical information regarding the city, and Western Europe is crowded enough as it is. I just thought I'd let the word "Massalia" hang in the air for a while...



EDIT: Massalia.

Massalia.

Maaa...saaaa....liaaa...

[Turnus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Majid-il Romani, dominique, subutan, Jolt, Abou!, Aztec Warrior, Jiulius, brymht, Maksimus, Turnus, Monte66, Son of Purin, The Abyssinian, Arris_Aurelius_Magnus, azzbaz, PseRamesses.

And amongst those 16 almost half of those are from accounts, seven in fact, that have posted less than 25 times in the forums. And while a couple of these may be legitimate accounts that deserve to have their thoughts heard, the vast majority appear to be puppet accounts or trolls & their real purpose should be questioned.

Yeah you should probably remove my name from that list, seeing as I merely said that it's clear that there won't be a Nubian faction. And because I said that, it must be clear to you that I am actually a "puppet account" for someone who really doesn't want the Nubians to be included.

Next time please actually read people's posts. Merely because I don't have many posts on the .org doesn't mean I'm a puppet account or an ignoramus (I am actually a coder and scripter of Hegemonia: City States). Rather, it probably means that I spend more time on the TWC...

To stay on topic, one of the issues with city-states (such as Syracuse, Kyrene, Massalia etc.) is whether they would make for a fun/historical campaign. They never really expanded to create a large empire, but, (as the mod likes the idea of 'changing history') this isn't the biggest issue. It is rather that it is hard to imagine states so inwardly focused to carve out such empires, and this could make game experience much less enjoyable. I find that in many EB campaigns, when one's empire has become quite large, and their historical enemies have been defeated, the game becomes less enjoyable as it is by this point so far seperated from history that everything just seems meaningless. For example, in a Carthaginian campaign, once Spain and Rome have been conquered, you can't help but think: What now? With city-states and possibly other small factions, it would perhaps seem this way from the start, as these cities historically maintained their own borders without the need for RTW-style conquest. Would it be realistic/enjoyable to conquer the world with such factions?

Another major issue with this is the behaviour of the AI. Imagine if you were playing as the Romani, and, entering into Gaul, found it completely under the control of the 'Massalia' faction. Or if you started a Sweboz campaign hoping for a migration to Italy and a war against the Romans, but, on arriving there, found it under the dominion of the city-state Syracuse. I think the inclusion of such factions is not needed for either historical or gameplay reasons. Factions with historical victory conditions (e.g. Romani conquering the Mediterranean, Parthians conquering the Seleucid lands) or reasonable victory conditions (e.g. Gallic factions needing to have control of all Gallic lands, the Treveri needing both Gallic and Germanic lands) make for both more realistic and more enjoyable mods. Of course, seeing as we have quite a few slots to fill, it would perhaps be good to use one of them for such a faction (perhaps Massalia). Any thoughts?

[Son of Perun]

Seems I have to quote myself:

I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2

I didn't want to bring this stuff back but it really makes me pissed when someone writes things like Meroe is "bullshit" and "completely below the military horizon". I researched a bit on Meroe and from the limited knowledge I know that this simply isn't true. But yeah, Foot is right, it is no longer topic for this thread. I apologize for making the mess

So once more for those people who have some problems with reading:

I agree that Meroe certainly won't be in EB2

[Ludens]

It would be like when Poland sent a cavalry force against German tanks.

According to Wikipedia, that's a propaganda myth.

[Parkev]

To stay on topic, one of the issues with city-states (such as Syracuse, Kyrene, Massalia etc.) is whether they would make for a fun/historical campaign. They never really expanded to create a large empire, but, (as the mod likes the idea of 'changing history') this isn't the biggest issue. It is rather that it is hard to imagine states so inwardly focused to carve out such empires, and this could make game experience much less enjoyable.

Can anyone else think of a rather notable power of this period that may or may not have begun as a city state (that may or may have been built on seven hills).

But seriously, I can see where you're coming from, it does make a lot of sense but I think its really function of how the game works. I don't we'd have a problem imagining Massila exerting influence on some smaller towns down the road, and opening some colonies along the coast, but there's no way to represent this is the game. Its either stay in your city, or march hundreds of kilometers and conquer a vast tract of land occupied by numerous Gallic tribe. There isn't much of a middle step.

Going on a bit of tangent, I think you can apply this to any faction (Hayastan, Saba, Casse) that start with only one city. You just go conquer that first city, even if you don't have the same kind of reasoned excuse (I guess something along the lines of "He called your sister fat and to rub it in he stole all of your goats; now, to reclaim your honour you must go subjugate his people") that is developed as role-playing builds up later in the game.

[abou]

Seems I have to quote myself:


I didn't want to bring this stuff back but it really makes me pissed when someone writes things like Meroe is "bullshit" and "completely below the military horizon". I researched a bit on Meroe and from the limited knowledge I know that this simply isn't true. But yeah, Foot is right, it is no longer topic for this thread. I apologize for making the mess

So once more for those people who have some problems with reading:

Okay, think I'm wrong? Prove it. Give me a detailed analysis.

Also, I didn't say one damn thing about "dirty savages". Throwing words around like that is not cool, Son of Perun. Not cool.

According to Wikipedia, that's a propaganda myth.

Sorry, Ludens. WWII isn't my specialty.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Okay, Folks!

As Foot said, this is a suggestion thread, so I thought I'd just continue to make cases for factions that haven't been discussed that much.

I agree that this one might be a bit of a stretch, especially given the arguments that have been presented against Massilia and other small city states, but I thought I'd just throw it in there anyway.
Maybe it has already been rejected officialy by the EB-team, but I have not been able to locate any post saying this, so if that is the case, just inform me of this fact, and I will speak of in no more.

Aetolian Leauge

The Aetolian League was initially formed ca. 367 b.C, by the leading cities of Aetolia to counter Spartan power. The leading city of the league was Thebes, despite its location in Boeotia. In the late 300:s, early 200:s, it gained power by opposing both the Achaean League and the Macedonians. The Aitolians defeated the Celtic invasion in 279 b.C, and thus saved the temple of Apollon at Delphi from being looted, meanwhile the League expanded territory-wise, and gained control over areas outside the original constraints of Aetolia.

During the 3rd century b.C, tensions grew between the Aechaeans and the Aitolians, reaching its climax during the Aetolian war (220-217), where the Aetolians were forced to fight an alliance of Aechaeans and Macedonians. By this time, however, they had gained much territory, expanding into both Boeotia and large portions of Thessaly, thus controlling most of central Greece.

The war resulted in the Aetolians in their turn forming an alliance with the Romans, and Aetolian forces were present at Kynoskefalai in 197 b.C, where they helped the Romans defeat the Macedonian army of Philip V.

The continued Roman intervention in Greek affairs made the Aetolians more antagonistic to the Roman cause, though, and they sided with Antiochos III during his war with Rome in 190. Antiochos was defeated at Magnesia, though, and the Aetolians were forced to sue for peace.

This resulted in them being forced to pay heavy fines, and many Aetolian warriors started selling their services as mercenaries. The power of the League was thus broken, and its territory was soon incorporated into the roman province of Achaea.

The Aetolian League was not ruled by kings, but by a gathering of the leaders of the cities.

The Aetolians would start with only Aetolia, and would thus have a very complicated starting position. Their best bets would be either to try to expand at the expense of the Macedonians (Demetreias, Korinthos), or else, they would have to find alternate routes of expansion, such as Crete, Sicily or Thrace. (I think they had some interests in Crete in reality too, actually.)

The Aetolians along the coasts were very Hellenized, but inland, the land was hevily influenced by Illyran culture and traditions. Thus, their units might be a combination of classical hoplites and some Illyrian units, and some Macedonian-style units, which would become available should they expand in such a direction. The fact that Aetolia is a mountainous region would result In relatively few an light cavalry types, though.

There are several negative sides to this faction, though:
Their initial position is a very difficult one, surrounded by several larger factions, some of them hostile, and with basically nowhere to expand. Thus, the AI might have some problems with getting anywhere, and might be swallowed up way too quickly. Also, there are already quite a few factions fighting for dominance over Hellas, so it might get a bit too crowded with 4 factions, dispersed over rather few provinces.
This could be helped, maybe, by adding a new province to Greece. This would, of course, require the deletion of another province on the map, and this would perhaps be stretching it a bit too far…

Anyway, I thought a new faction suggestion would make a welcome break from the eternal discussion on Meroë…

[keravnos]

The Aetolians along the coasts were very Hellenized, but inland, the land was hevily influenced by Illyran culture and traditions. Thus, their units might be a combination of classical hoplites and some Illyrian units, and some Macedonian-style units, which would become available should they expand in such a direction. The fact that Aetolia is a mountainous region would result In relatively few an light cavalry types, though.

What kind of ... sources do you have for this?
Aitolians spoke the same NW greek (that Epeirotes and Makedones also used) that was so intelligible to Southern Greeks that they just couldn't get it. Phillipos V of Makedonia wondered whether they spoke greek at all, that is how heavily accented they were. It has been suggested that NW Greek was a Dorian Greek Idiom and this seems to be the truth seeing that Dorians from Elis (where Olympia is located) originally came from Aitolia and Akarnania.

Thebes was the seat of "Koinon Boioton" not of Aitolian league. It was an enemy of Aitolians before being beaten into a pulp by them by 240's or so.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

The sources that I have used are mainly various encyclopedias, primarily NE, which is the swedish equivalent of Encyclopedia Britannica. I have, however, used some Wikipedia as well. Didn't find as much info on this as on cappadocia, though.

I admit that my "research" is rudimentary, at best, so please inform me if anything is missing, or any obvious mistakes

However, to clarify some things, that might have been vague...

When I said that Thebes was the leading city, I did not mean as the capital of Aetolia, but rather, as the leading city of the coalision that opposed sparta when the League was firs formed. however, this is not how it appears in the text. Sorry 'bout that... The Aetolians did fight the Boiotians later, defeating them ca 245 b.C, I think... forgot to mention this, though. The important cities in Aetolia, I gather, were Thermon and Kalydon.

When it comes to the language, I am aware of this fact, however did not mention it.
I know that the "very" hellenized is going a bit to far, but what I meant was that the military would be of a hellenic type.
In general, I refered to how I imagined their soldiers would have been, not so much their culture or ethnicity

Anyway, thanks for the comments!

Cheers!

EDIT: concerning the "Illyrian" part; the Aetolians were not Illyrians, however the population was quite intermixed with Illyrians, it seems.

EDIT2: Still didn't seem right, so I edited the bit about language and hellenism bit.

Man, what a mess...

[azzbaz]

I reckon the Nabataeans should get a go, check out this website if you havent already it's excellent
http://nabataea.net/ehistory.html

[Che Roriniho]

I reckon the Nabataeans should get a go, check out this website if you havent already it's excellent
http://nabataea.net/ehistory.html

I do have a feeliing they've been suggested and rejected, but it would be an interesting rival to Saba in a rather large gap. We do however, need a eastern european faction, because there is a ruly HUGE gap there.

[Pinkkiller]

hmm will Nabataea be in EBII?

[Dumbass]

hmm will Nabataea be in EBII?

Yes no, maybe. I don't know. Can you repeat the question...

[AlexanderSextus]

are the Boii gonna get put in? with 4 eleutheroi provinces representing them already it seems as if they'd have a nice start at 272...

[General Appo]

4 Boii starting regions? Which are these if I may ask? If the Boii do appear as an faction in EB2 (quite likely if you ask me) I´d say that they´d start with Mrogbonna. At least I think that´s the region I´m thinking of. I´m sure they don´t have 4 different regions to start with.

[Fondor_Yards]

I remember reading a while back that they controlled Pannonia in addition to Mrogbonna during this time, so they probably have both*don't quote me on this*. The other nearby cities with Satres/othersupergenerals guarding them would probably disappear, since the Boii would full fill their purpose.

As for my picks, mine are basically the repeated favorites, even if some won't be getting in *Boii, Galatians, Bosphorians, Belgae, Celtiberians, Massalia, Crimean Scythians, a Goidili tribe*Erains?*, yes I like the barbarians, most good 'civilized' states are already in.* And before someone says the Scythians and Goidili most likely won't be in, I know I did actually read the whole 26 pages.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

im all for the barbarians!!!! The more the merrier!!!!! a bit of a celtophile myself hehehe!!!!
I enjoy all the barbarian factions the most!!!!!!!!!

I would have to ask for the boii of course I'm gonna say Galatians but I am a hundred percent sure they are not going to be in it. The celtic kingdom of Tylis (cant remember if that was the trocmi or not) 4 the belgae 5 another iberian tribe like the Editani 6 atropatene 7 Kingdom of Cimmerian Bosphoros 8 another german tribe to flesh out the area 9 a numidian tribe (it will just get steam rolled by carthage though) 10 Palmyra or (Tadmor) it was independent from the seleucid empire.
Im not sure it deserves a slot but the city state has always interested me!!!!

[Visitor13]

Will be in:

1. Pergamon

Almost sure to be in:

2. Celtiberia
3. Numidia
4. The Belgae
5. The Boii

Will probably be in:

6. An Illyrian faction (the Breuci?)
7. Scythia
8. The Bosphoran Kingdom

Might be in:

9. Syracuse
10. Kyrene
11. Atropatene
12. Gandhara
13. Bithynia (hopefully not, as Asia Minor is too crowded already)
14. Cappadocia (as above)
15. Another Germanic faction (the Bastarnae?)

I guess Kyrene and Atropatene will be chosen. I base this list on the major empty spaces on the EB map.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I think someone from the team said that Kyrene wouldn't make it. I could be mistaken, though...

But, yeah, I'd guess celtiberians, numidians and belgae are rather safe bets. Boii as well.

We will see in due time...

[General Appo]

One (or two) numidian factions is I believe almost certain, given that Numidia was probably the faction closest to being included in EB1. They´ve probably just ain´t got enough work done of them to make a Stele.

[Visitor13]

I don't think two Numidian factions, or a Numidian and a Mauri faction are a good idea. It's going to be hard enough for one such faction not to get clobbered by Carthage.

I wonder what the Numidian heavy units are going to be, if there are going to be any at all, apart from mercs.

Just read the thread again and I see that Illyria, Syracuse and Kyrene will most likely not make it in. Pity about the latter two, both are between rocks and hard places and would therefore be fun to play. Illyria would only get in the much-needed way for Dacia, fair enough.

Some sort of an Alpine faction, like the Noricii or the Helvetii...

Personally I'd love to hear what factions, except Pergamon, have been decided on thus far; I'm not too big on surprises and wouldn't complain even if I didn't like some of the choices.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I don't think two Numidian factions, or a Numidian and a Mauri faction are a good idea. It's going to be hard enough for one such faction not to get clobbered by Carthage.

Well, historically, the Numidians weren't united, at least not until under Massinissa and those guys, so they might be more accurately depicted by two factions, such as one Numidian and one Mauretanian (or two Numidian). In fact, the various Numidian tribes often fought eachother , for example the enemies Syphax and Massinissa, where Massinisa first joined the Carthaginians, and then switched sides to the Romans, prompting Syphax to ally himself with the Carthaginians, after first having been neutral.
Another example might be the Jugurthine wars, when the Numidians and Mauretanians first were allies, but the Mauretanians betrayed the Numidians to the Romans.

Given that Carthage will be occupied on other fronts as well, such as Iberia, I think that two factions could actually have a chance of establishing a powerful kingdom of their own. The skirmisher-nature of their units might be able to take quite a heavy toll on the slow carthaginian units as well

I wonder what the Numidian heavy units are going to be, if there are going to be any at all, apart from mercs.

During the later stages of the EB-timeframe, I think the romans trained some Numidians in heavy infantry tactics, which might be represented by a rerform. They could possibly have some hellenic-style units, inspired by Punic military, though. Otherwise, I believe that they will primarily have light troops... and, of course, elephants!!!

[Turnus]

During the later stages of the EB-timeframe, I think the romans trained some Numidians in heavy infantry tactics, which might be represented by a rerform.

This supposedly occured in 213 BCE (Livy 24.48). Statorius was hired by Syphax to organise an infantry force (not neccessarily 'heavy' in the manner of Roman forces). It is reported in the 1st century BCE that the Numidians still used this organisation (I believe in Sallust/Caesar). In game, this could perhaps be represented as an event, similar to the Cataphract reforms. Perhaps if the Numidians are allied with Rome against Carthage, they could "hire" Statorius through an event and the reform would take place.

[Majd il-Romani]

This supposedly occured in 213 BCE (Livy 24.48). Statorius was hired by Syphax to organise an infantry force (not neccessarily 'heavy' in the manner of Roman forces). It is reported in the 1st century BCE that the Numidians still used this organisation (I believe in Sallust/Caesar). In game, this could perhaps be represented as an event, similar to the Cataphract reforms. Perhaps if the Numidians are allied with Rome against Carthage, they could "hire" Statorius through an event and the reform would take place.

yeah kinda like a

reform trigger: Numidia (massilya)

must be allied with romans, enemies with carthage
at least year 213 BC
fought 5 battles against Carthaginian Heavy infantry whch were defeats

[Aemilius Paulus]

How many unit slots are filled in EB I? Because if the number is close to the maximum of 520, then I would rather have the same number of factions in EB II. I would rather have the 21 (including Rebels) factions with lots of units than something like 30 factions with little unit variety. I believe a game should have quality, not quantity. If no new factions over the 21 existing can be added, then I think the EB should scrap the Aediu or the Arverni, for just one Gallic faction. Also, please don't add any more Hellenic factions! There is already more than enough to choose from. However, since there is a limit of 520 units, you could technically have 21 factions with a lot of unit variety and then have another 10 that only use the units from the 21 factions. This way you'll have both quality and quantity. The more factions you have, the more historically accurate the game is. After all, there was no such things as the Rebels (in RTW sense) in history. Every territory was owned by one nation or another with a possible exception of a couple of really desolate places, such as deserts, deep forests, and high mountain ranges.

[Foot]

There is a max of 31 factions in EBII. There is a max of 500 units in EBII. All factions in EBI will be in EBII. All this information and more can be gleamed from reading past posts in this thread and also the EBII FAQ, under Important Information.

Foot

[General Appo]

If no new factions over the 21 existing can be added, then I think the EB should scrap the Aediu or the Arverni, for just one Gallic faction. Also, please don't add any more Hellenic factions! There is already more than enough to choose from..

Sigh. When will people get this? The EB team can´t just say "lets add a faction there" and "lets not add one there" because it would be cool to have one there and uncool to have one at another place.
Though I am in no way part of the EB team I dare to say that the Gauls will never be represented as a single faction, because that would be grossly unhistorical.

The "rebels" in EB are called Eleutheroi for a reason. It means the Independents, and that is what they are. Independent tribes, cities and people not controlled by the major nations, tribes and people the EB team have decided to represent as a faction. Each and every one of the Eleutheroi regions is independent from the other ones, and the EB team far from wishes to imply that they are all rebels against the "real" factions. Every single tribe, city and people is its own faction, but since the engine limits are what they are it is not possible to represent this through making every single little Gallic tribe or Greek city-state a faction.

Of course, this is just what I have gathered from longtime reading of EB team members posts and statements, and is not official EB stand.