New factions?

[Foot]

Right. I mean you're right. How could a barbaric race who couldn't even live in cities (losers) create a government system that allowed the autonomous control of several tribes under one larger tribal confederation. They are all just a bunch of Liberals (in the American sense) and wasters pulling in different directions and never looking out for the community. Only the holy civilisations of Greece and Rome were able to govern large areas.

Or wait, perhaps the idea that barbarians are uncivilised, unable to perform even the simplest administrative duty, is complete crap. Indeed one might even further be able to entertain the prospect that large confederations of tribes sharing a common language (if not dialect) and culture might actually be a rather strong form of government, allowing for a certain level of autonomy, but also centralised authority when the time is required. A sort of warrior democracy, where elected officials, answerable to their people, vote on higher matters in an Aedui council, or something.

But no, they were simple farm people. I mean yes, they could create the most influential form of armour in human history so far (chain-mail), an intricate and highly complicated design of rings, but they couldn't form a government capable of uniting large swathes of the gallic population, that would be just beyond them.

Right?

Foot

[Parkev]

Right?

You've made my day.

Foot, everyone knows that before the Romans there was no such thing as complex democratic cultured civilisations, capable of organising a capable mobile military force, personal hygeine and codifying an established legal system.

Haven't you ever played Rome: Total War?

[General Appo]

You just got trampled by da FOOT

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

But no, they were simple farm people. I mean yes, they could create the most influential form of armour in human history so far (chain-mail), an intricate and highly complicated design of rings, but they couldn't form a government capable of uniting large swathes of the gallic population, that would be just beyond them.

Right?

Foot

Indeed...

I think that the reason people tend to se Gauls as somehow "inferior" to the Romans, Greeks etc. is that the word "tribe" conjures up an image of savagery and disunity, and as the opposite of what we define as civilization. Whereas the civilization symbolizes unity, organization and sophistication, the tribes symbolize disunity, isolation and barbarism. This despite that the tribe is just another form of society, no less complex and ambitious than any other.
Thus, we tend to see the Gauls as a simple and unsophisticated people, without any form of organized society, while the Greeks of the same time are seen as a glorious example of civilization and sophistication. However, Greece in this era presents an equally disparate group of leauges and city-states, just as diverse and prone to infighting as the Gallic tribes. Yet, one is seen as a civilization, the other as a disunited group of tribes.
One of the great things about EB is that it has managed to wash off that barbarian "stamp" that the Gauls have carried, invented by ancient Greek and Roman authors, and reinforced by popular culture of our time in movies and games, and revealed to people the true coutenance of this facinating culture.
Hopefully, it will help people see the Celts, not as bearded savages clothed in animal hides, hitting each other over the head with clubs, but as the vibrant and complex civilization they really were.

[AlexanderSextus]

You guys are correct that the Aedui were sophisticated, but i think he was alluding to the fact that the Aedui had worse things to worry about at the time (*cough*Arverni*cough*) so They wouldn't have marched huge armies across the Alps to defend Medio.... happened to me a couple times in my first couple Roman campaigns, but oddly, not my current one.

[Foot]

As has been mentioned previously, the government system in EBI was not perfect, it is difficult to represent the subtleties of each individual state with regards its position in the faction as a whole. This will be improved in EBII. If you aren't happy about the gov in Medio then you can change it or even remove the province, but Medio was certainly part of the Aedui confederacy during this timeperiod, and whether the Aedui could or could not support it with troops is independent of this fact.

The UK, before WWII, maintained a treaty with Poland regardless of the fact that there was no plausible way it could deploy troops in fulfillment of the treaty if Poland was invaded. The treaty existed even still.

Foot

[Khazar_Dahvos]

Long live the celts!!!!!! I can see both sides of the debate but Foot is right!!!!! It is hard to represent things as they actually were within the limits of the engine!!!

[TheGlobalizer]

My 2 cents/pence/Euro-thingies:

If you're adding 10 factions, I'd rather see the map creep a bit to the east and bring in Indian and western Chinese factions than cramming a bunch of borderline-meaningless city-states to the game. I like the EB1.1 method of bulking up particular cities to reflect the independent city-state concept.

I'm not sure "Egypt"/yellow needs to be countered as much as rebalanced. I'm in my first EB campaign and they are literally sprinting through AS.

I like the idea of Meroe/Kush even if they get run over.

Numidia and Boii are obvious, I think.

[Foot]

We can't enlarge the map anymore than it currently is. This is because of the max number of settlements is 199 which we reached with the EBI map. Additionally the number of unit slots the number of culture slots the number of ... well you get the picture. The scope of what we can mod becomes more and more limited the further we extend the map.

Besides, I would hate it if the map extended so far, the game would lose focus and in an effort to improve scope we would lose depth.

Foot

[Cartaphilus]

You guys are correct that the Aedui were sophisticated, but i think he was alluding to the fact that the Aedui had worse things to worry about at the time (*cough*Arverni*cough*) so They wouldn't have marched huge armies across the Alps to defend Medio.... happened to me a couple times in my first couple Roman campaigns, but oddly, not my current one.

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Well, though the Aedui may have been occupied elsewhere, the insubres were still, part of the Aedui confederation.
With that type of logic, Rhodos shouldn't be part of the KH either, as it is doubtful wether the Spartans would have been able to send reinforcements, had they been invaded by the Seleucids, given that Pyrrhos was marching towards them in 272, and the Macedonians being as close as they were.

Still, such things happened...
Take, for instance, the Athenian expedition to sicily during the war with sparta, where they sent a fleet to support the small city of Segesta against the Syracusans, who were allied with the Spartans. The expedition failed, and in the end led to the Athenian defeat in the war, but such campaigns were sometimes undertaken.

The Gauls may not have had the same type of infrastructure the Romans had, but they were still capable of forming coalisions, such as the Aedui confederation, that were indeed a force to be reckoned with. Such Coalisions did also have the capability to make rather extensive campaigns. Also smaller tribes did have a rather complex organization for campaigning.
When they made a migrition in the 50's B.C, the Helvetii drew up lists of people and supplies for their march. The Aedui would probably have been able to do the same, had they decided to make a long distance campaign.

And, if I'm not mistaken, there were transalpine Gauls present at Telamon, so the Gauls were not limited to their direct tribal heartlands when it came to warfare.

[Cartaphilus]

Well, we have to wait till we see the new government system of EB II, that seems to be quite different than the current one.

But if EBII will keep Types (I for more cohesionate states, IV for lessers ones), think about changing the actual situation in Mediolanum, in Balearica et cetera.


In Telamon fought transalpine gauls, the famous Gaesatae mercenaries. But they fight for gold, not to defend an "hypothetic celtic nation" or any treaty. Of course the barbarians knew some kind of diplomacy, they were not like some sort of Conan the cimmerian, and they could be bound to their leaders in a different way than roman or greeks, think about the devotio iberica, the soldurii for the gauls and the comitatus for the germans.

[General Appo]

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?

Well, if you care to read about on these forums you will see that such often results in one getting trampled by da FOOT
Though of course admitting that you might be wrong can save you.

Of course, from a certain point of view you are correct, the Gauls weren´t quite as good at creating centralised goverments with a single strong authority, but this in no way hindered them from building strong states overall, they just did it a bit differently, what with the tribal system and all.

[Majd il-Romani]

how about samurai japan?

[Jolt]

how about samurai japan?

...?

This tops amongst the most non-sense posts I've seen, along with Abkosee's Bartix and that Hebrew defender guy's arguments.

[lobf]

Exactly. That is what I was suggesting.

But, anyway, the celts were not able to build "strong" states as the Roman, the Carthaginian or the empires of the east. Or am I totally wrong?

Do you actually have a reason for postulating this besides your gut?

Erain with Goidilic reforms - All those splendid units and not a faction there? Bizarre is it not. Also provides competition with the Casse on the british isles which is quite decrepit as it stands.

You probably won't see most of those neat Goidilic units in EBII.

[Dumbass]

Do you actually have a reason for postulating this besides your gut?



You probably won't see most of those neat Goidilic units in EBII.

Wha! Why not? Aren't they historically accurate?

[Cartaphilus]

Do you actually have a reason for postulating this besides your gut?

More than you, indeed.

[lobf]

More than you, indeed.

What are you talking about? I didn't even propose anything. I was just asking if you based this knowledge off of anything besides what feels right. Apparently not.

Wha! Why not? Aren't they historically accurate?

Likely not. But that's a whole other topic.

That's currently being argued by lobf and Elmactios, but I am not sure what the team's stance is. Recruitment for the two heaviest Goidelic units (the hammermen and the imitation dosidataskeli) has been disabled, but this does not necessarily mean they will all be scrapped in EB2.

It's not, and shouldn't be, just us. We are quite vocal about the matter, though. Anyways, the fact that they scrapped them between 1.0 and 1.1 (or maybe it was earlier) is a pretty good indicator they won't be back.