New factions?

[vollorix]

With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?

I´ll gladly take one :)
I do not like "landbridges" actually, but one could make one between England and Continental Europe to spice things up. I actually liked Belgians in EB1, their warlike FMs, and their superb troops! It might come as a suprise, but i think there is going to be an "Alpine Faction", instead of those "elite Rebell stacks". With decent units and sofisticated diplomatic settings for that faction, they, along with the Belgians, might be exactly what Europe might need to get "fully populated". With the Arevaci in Spain, all those factions should give a tought time to Romans, or whoever wishes to establish a large pan European empire. I always find it more difficult to fight several small ( but well situated, financially ) factions, then have one oponent, and so should the AI, because even with one settlement those factions are able to replenish their losses, regroup, grab a settlement or two, and come back in couple of years, to take a revange.

The only thing i hope is that Carthaginians will finaly compete for Sicily, really nice Punic Wars, instead of their stacks roaming around African deserts to capture worthless Eleutheroi villages. Wars between Carthage and Ptolemaioi in the Lybian desert are very irrealistic, and annoying too, imho.

I also hope, that the team will pay more attention on "autoresolving", since that´s the way AI armies fight against each other. The super heavy armour, or phalangitai are simply overwhelming for the poor barbarians in long terms. Maybe some tweaks are possible to make units stronger ( EDU i.e ) on particular terrain to give them a needed advantage, or to amplify the "rationing" effect on generals, reducing their command stars by half, and/or some other tweaks ( i´ve got no idea about MTW2 engine at all ).

[OvidiusNasso]

I was dissapointed to see the Casse replaced by the Pritanoi and likewise the announcement that the Pritanoi would be the only British faction (actually really annoyed by the fact Ireland has been decreased to a single province centred on Tara, UP NAVAN!) however I have since reconcilled myself with the fact that there really is no other possible British faction to compete against the Casse/Pritanoi. The main rivals of the Casse, the Atrebates, did not arrive to 100BC at the earliest, even with historical information and numismatic evidence we cannot seperate the Trinovantes history from the Casse and to set them up as rivals would be foolish as they are in such close proximity. Elsewhere in Britain there are no suitable candidates for a faction, the Brigantes and Caledones were both confederacies and quite possibly only emerged as result of the Roman threat in the 1st century, whilst other tribes such as the Iceni, Durotriges and Dumnonii in the midlands were not expansionist and instead appear to have been primarily traders.

With regards to your concern that the Britons might just steamroll Gaul my hope is that there will be a powerful buffer faction across the channel to prevent such things and the danger of Sweboz blitzkriegs from occurring.... Belgian waffle anyone?

Unfortunately you are correct, and I will probably go either Gauls, Romans, or Greeks on my first campaign.

I´ll gladly take one :)
I do not like "landbridges" actually, but one could make one between England and Continental Europe to spice things up. I actually liked Belgians in EB1, their warlike FMs, and their superb troops! It might come as a suprise, but i think there is going to be an "Alpine Faction", instead of those "elite Rebell stacks". With decent units and sofisticated diplomatic settings for that faction, they, along with the Belgians, might be exactly what Europe might need to get "fully populated". With the Arevaci in Spain, all those factions should give a tought time to Romans, or whoever wishes to establish a large pan European empire. I always find it more difficult to fight several small ( but well situated, financially ) factions, then have one oponent, and so should the AI, because even with one settlement those factions are able to replenish their losses, regroup, grab a settlement or two, and come back in couple of years, to take a revange.

The only thing i hope is that Carthaginians will finaly compete for Sicily, really nice Punic Wars, instead of their stacks roaming around African deserts to capture worthless Eleutheroi villages. Wars between Carthage and Ptolemaioi in the Lybian desert are very irrealistic, and annoying too, imho.

I also hope, that the team will pay more attention on "autoresolving", since that´s the way AI armies fight against each other. The super heavy armour, or phalangitai are simply overwhelming for the poor barbarians in long terms. Maybe some tweaks are possible to make units stronger ( EDU i.e ) on particular terrain to give them a needed advantage, or to amplify the "rationing" effect on generals, reducing their command stars by half, and/or some other tweaks ( i´ve got no idea about MTW2 engine at all ).

If only they removed the option of going South, the anti-Barcids lost and playing those isn't fun because it feels more like hunting then warfare. But on Britons steamrolling Gaul and often Germany it is a serious possibility it did afterall happen in Rome Total War when British Isles had less.

[Populus Romanus]

The Pritanoi will only have one province to start, not all of Prittania.

[stratigos vasilios]

From the fan based map progression thread:

the starting province of the Pritanoi, its the landlocked province in Southern England (Penncrugon).

[Populus Romanus]

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/v...orrio_6_2.html
I found this very interesting link to an article about the Celtiberian methods of warfare. From the article:

From the fifth century's end to the end of the third century BC, at the end of the Middle Celtiberian phase, the dominance of the Upper Tagus and Jalon valleys shifted to the lands of the Upper Douro (Lorrio 1997: 315-316). Evidence for this change is seen in the rise of the Arevaci, the most powerful Celtiberian populus in the fight against Rome. The cemeteries of the right bank of the Upper Douro (Soria) that belonged to them contained numerous warrior tombs that reflect their importance in Arevaci society and its military character. The tombs in these cemeteries do not have the helmets, pectorals or the large embossed bronze umbos of the Aguilar de Anguita or Alpanseque type burials (Lorrio 1997: 173-182).

During the Middle Celtiberian period (ca. 450-225/200 BC), the Celtiberians secured and stabilized the areas settled in the Early period, and began to occupy new lands such as the right bank of the Middle Ebro Valley (Capalvo 2001). The settlements grew in size (some of them between two and five hectares) and number, and the number of cemeteries increased (Fig. 18). All of this indicates sustained demographic growth and systematic occupation of territory.

The first of the areas mentioned above corresponds to the inland regions of the Iberian Peninsula, where the Celtiberians would have been located (Fig. 3).5 This group was expressly considered by several authors to be Celtic (Posidonius, in Diodorus 5, 33; Strabo 3, 4, 5; Martial Epigr. I, 55, 8-10 and X, 63, 3-4; Isidorus Ethym. 9, 2, 114). From the late third century BC onwards, Graeco-Roman literary sources began to provide the earliest information on the Celtiberians and Celtiberia, and gave accounts of the names of Celtiberian peoples and their location. There is no single unanimous opinion regarding the links between peoples that could be considered Celtiberians, which include the Arevaci, Pelendones, Lusones, Belli and Titti, and occasionally Vaccaei, Carpetani, Olcades, Lobetani, and even more distant groups such as Oretani, Bastetani, Bastuli or Celtici. There is similarly no shortage of authors who reject the ethnic content of the term altogether, and take it to refer to all inhabitants of an extensive area of the inland Peninsula.

The first reference to Celtiberia is made within the context of the Second Punic War, in Polybius' narration of the siege of Saguntum (3, 17, 2) in the spring of 219 BC. From this date onwards, information about Celtiberians and Celtiberia is plentiful and varied, since the Celtiberians were one of the key players in the various wars and battles that took place throughout the second and first century BC, which culminated in the destruction of Numantia in 133 BC. Celtiberia also played a vital role in the Sertonian Wars (Salinas 1996: 27-37).

According to Strabo (3, 4, 13), Celtiberia was divided into four territories, of which he only made reference to those inhabited by the Arevaci and Lusones, although Polybius (35, 2) and Appian (Iber. 44, 48-49, 50, 61-63 and 66) revealed that the other two corresponded to the Belos and Belli and Titthi tribes. A little further on, Strabo (3, 4, 19) indicated that some believed that there were five areas. Several candidates were proposed as inhabiting this fifth zone, including the Vaccaei, who were considered Celtiberians by Appian (Iber. 50-52, 53-54) although in general they appeared in sources as two separate peoples. In all probability, this fifth section was inhabited by the Pelendones, whom Pliny (3, 26) described as Celtiberians.

The Celtiberians could be considered an ethnic group insofar as they included subordinate ethnic units, just as the Gauls or the Iberians did, but on a smaller scale, without evidence for centralized power or even a political hierarchy (Burillo 1993: 226).

When the Celtiberian War began, the other Celtiberian tribes (Titti, Belli, Lusones, etc.) were willing to rally around them to head the war against Rome. This the Arevaci did very well, as Polybius illustrates well:

"The war between the Romans and the Celtiberians was called the 'fiery war,' so remarkable was the uninterrupted character of the engagements....The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness, the combatants refusing either to let their courage flag or to yield to bodily fatigue, and ever rallying, recovering confidence and beginning afresh. Winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one."

Polybius, The Histories (XXXV.1)

Indeed, when Scipio Aemilianus besieged Numantia, the Arevaci capitol, He refused to give battle to the enemy, though they offered battle many times out of desparation from starvation, because he recognized that he would lose. In the end, it was not a crushing military defeat that felled the Arevaci, but starvation.

The Arevaci were the main tribe of the Celtiberians, and had lots of polical influence in the affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. During the Middle Celtiberian Period, which ended in ~220 BC, the Celtiberians were expanding into the territory of their neighbors, and consolidating these conquests. The Arevaci would certainly also take part in this expansion wave. That establishes that they were a conquest oriented people during Europa Barbarorum II's timeframe. As for their importance to other factions, the Celtiberians a s a whole were definently as powerful as the Lusotanan, perhaps even more. Furthermore, the Iberian Peninsula is begging for another faction. Having the Lusotana conquer all of the peninsula in a breeze is not very realistic, after all, they never expanded due to hostile neighbors. Having the Arevaci would help to slow down the Lusotana. Also, the Arevaci's expansionistic tendancies were counteracted by hostile neighbors, just like the Lusotana. Having both would make the portrayal of each more realistic.As the principle tribe of the Celtiberians, they certainly warrant a faction. Also, there is an ample historical record to construct the Arevaci faction.

[eddy_purpus]

Did Pritanoi ever touch Europe´s soil in any attempt to gain land in the EB time frame?

[bobbin]

Yes, in fact they were in constant contact with it (unless they jumped).

[B-Wing]

LOL, I assume by "Europe" he meant the mainland. Great response, though.

[Populus Romanus]

lol. But assuming he meant the mainland, then no, I don't think they ever did. I believe that they were too busy killing one another in Britain to be bothered about the mainland.

[eddy_purpus]

Yes, in fact they were in constant contact with it (unless they jumped).

Was it ahistorical the starting province that CA gave them in France in Rome vanilla ,then?

Im just saying because I sometimes get annoyed at the fact that ´Pritanoi´ will never carry troops into France to conquer land when Im not playing as them...

I hate seeing them just start in Britannia and sit there for the rest of the campaign...

And also...

I would love ... if the EB team decided to make an ´invisible bridge´just like constantinople´s city in between France and Britannia...
It would help the issue of Island Factions to not have to carry troops into another place using boats...Because they never do it that way...Just as Pritanoi...

[Populus Romanus]

I think that would be a good idea, it would help spice things up in Prittania.

[eddy_purpus]

What...
The invisible bridge...Or the Province that CA game them in vanilla?

If they indeed, decided to add an invisible bridge through there...

It should take at least 2 turns to cross it...
That... Id suggest.. lol

[Paltmull]

Well, the problem in EB is that the AI very rarely uses ships. If this changes with EBII we might very well see Pritanoi invasions of the mainland.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Eddy, Bobbin made a joke. Brittain is also Europe.

And the MedII naval AI is much, much better then in RTW. Even in vanilla Scotland will expand in Europe (particulary Belgium) if it's at peace with England.

[eddy_purpus]

Well, the problem in EB is that the AI very rarely uses ships. If this changes with EBII we might very well see Pritanoi invasions of the mainland.

That´s what I´d like to see... :)

Eddy, Bobbin made a joke. Brittain is also Europe.

And the MedII naval AI is much, much better then in RTW. Even in vanilla Scotland will expand in Europe (particulary Belgium) if it's at peace with England.

Lol...
I hope the naval AI is better in EB2..
I would´nt like to watch a faction just sittin´in an island doing nothing :P

[bobbin]

Was it ahistorical the starting province that CA gave them in France in Rome vanilla ,then?

For the most part, I guess they were basing it loosely on the Atrebates, a Belgic tribe, who we supposed to have held territory on both sides of the channel. It's certainly incorrect for 270BC though.

Im just saying because I sometimes get annoyed at the fact that ´Pritanoi´ will never carry troops into France to conquer land when Im not playing as them...

I hate seeing them just start in Britannia and sit there for the rest of the campaign...

And also...

I would love ... if the EB team decided to make an ´invisible bridge´just like constantinople´s city in between France and Britannia...
It would help the issue of Island Factions to not have to carry troops into another place using boats...Because they never do it that way...Just as Pritanoi...

The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.

[Drunk Clown]

The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.

I adjusted it to prevent misinterpreting

[bobbin]

Thank you, amended my post too.

[eddy_purpus]

For the most part, I guess they were basing it loosely on the Atrebates, a Belgic tribe, who we supposed to have held territory on both sides of the channel. It's certainly incorrect for 270BC though.


The AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW, so no need to make a land bridge.

So it is likely that we will see naval invasions from the Pritanoi on France or other parts of Europe :D?

[WinsingtonIII]

So it is likely that we will see naval invasions from the Pritanoi on France or other parts of Europe :D?

I suppose we can't know until we play, but I have seen naval invasions in a few M2TW mods. Most notably, I see lots of naval invasions (like persistant repeated attempts against you from the same faction instead of just occasional attempts throughout the game) in Thera: Legacy of the Great Torment, however that may be in part because unit costs and upkeep are very low in that mod. There is always the worry that the extreme expense of ships in EB2 (assuming they are as expensive as in EB1) may discourage the AI from building a navy and launching naval invasions. But hopefully the money scripts for the AI will offset that.

Still, there is certainly evidence that the M2 AI is capable of repeated naval invasions.

[QuintusSertorius]

Given how atrocious the naval AI in BI was, expensive ships preventing spamming of fleets is not a bad thing.

[vollorix]

I was playing several different campaigns last time and there is one thing i must say: The AI can in fact do really good naval invasions! Rhodes was the island where everyone seemed to want to invade, and i have seen Macedonians, Epirotes, Ptoleys and Seleucids landing their troops, partly full stacks, there and sieging the city. The AI also knows very well about the advantages of Rhodes military docks, and unless they are of the same culture, they do not bother with building up barracks or even auxillaries, but instead went strait for the shipwrights, cranking out powerfull ships within shortes possible time. Those pathetic landings happen only if the AI is assuming there is only a small garrison on the island, or is mislead by an ambushing party, but if a factions wants Rhodes, and that seemed to be quite a priority for the factions i listed above, they used to get it, sooner or later, mostly after the first attempt with a decent stack. I wouldn´t call BI.exe inept in performing of naval invasions, the point is, it´s still AI and no human, who can concentrate his whole power on one single battle/front, while heroically defending the rest of the empire with couple of slingers and FM ;)

[GenosseGeneral]

I do agree on this point; i got certain screenshots with which I documented what I called my "the carthie's D-DAY": A massive fleet operation to support hard pressed Italian holdings with 2-3 fullstacks with troops from the whole carthaginan empire (including spain and the baleares). I had not the timne to upload them yet, but they prove, that the BI.exe AI is capable of "planning" a sea invasion besides from sending 2-3 units to sicily.

[Populus Romanus]

Nabatu.


Discuss.

[Tyrfingr]

Nabatu.


Discuss.

Fail. The Nabataean Kingdom did not emerge as a clear, independent kingdom until the mid-2nd century BC when the ptolies and seleukids were in decline and could not claim soverign over the area.

[XSamatan]

Nabatu.


Discuss.

Your post doesn't met the minimum that is expected on this forum, this is not 4chan.
If you want to discuss about a potential faction search for proof, read the sources and present it while using at least minimalistic academic standards.

XSamatan

[Populus Romanus]

Your post doesn't met the minimum that is expected on this forum, this is not 4chan.
If you want to discuss about a potential faction search for proof, read the sources and present it while using at least minimalistic academic standards.

XSamatan

Actually, the minimum allowed on this forum is 3 characters. Otherwise it would not have even let me post.
The problem with the Nabataeans is that there is very little history available about them around 272 BC. However, I figured that since people on TWC were very receptive to the idea of the Nabatu as a faction, that people here would be as well, and that a few gems of information may crop up that could be used to formulate a case.

Fail. The Nabataean Kingdom did not emerge as a clear, independent kingdom until the mid-2nd century BC when the ptolies and seleukids were in decline and could not claim soverign over the area.

Fail yourself. The Nabataeans were an organized tribe in 272 BC, indeed they were so at the extreme minimum at least almost 50 before then, almost certainly far longer, maybe even centuries old. Maybe you should have done some research, if one looks even the most effortless search would show that in 311 BC a Diadochi army was thrown back from Petra by enemies who are clearly the Nabataeans. The fact that they defeated the army sent to subjugate them means they were independant, both because they had not already been subjugated and by the fact that their defeat of the army further solidified their independance.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Fail yourself. The Nabataeans were an organized tribe in 272 BC, indeed they were so at the extreme minimum at least almost 50 before then, almost certainly far longer, maybe even centuries old. Maybe you should have done some research, if one looks even the most effortless search would show that in 311 BC a Diadochi army was thrown back from Petra by enemies who are clearly the Nabataeans. The fact that they defeated the army sent to subjugate them means they were independant, both because they had not already been subjugated and by the fact that their defeat of the army further solidified their independance.

I'm sorry? You didn't do that search until I pointed out to you were you should look. The least you could do is point out the places where you found the information, and share it with Jaertecken. And be a bit nicer in general.

[Populus Romanus]

Alright.
I am sorry Jaertecken.
And it was not your sources that provided me with that info. It was splattered all over Wikipedia, and then was verified by other sources I checked, including yours, though only later.

[Moros]

312 Bc IIRC.