Faction pitch idea: To fill the gap in Carpathian basin

[Diodredai]

It seems you skipped over a very important fact I stated: in the 2nd century BC the Segestani, a Pannon tribe clashed with the Romans. There is no mention whatsoever of other, non Pannon, Illyrian tribes showing any type of importance in the era, besides the Panonns. Not to mention: many important metal processing and mining areas were under their control.

Now let's look at the Illyrian tribes:


You can clearly see that southern Pannonia is inhabited by them. The Dalmatians would be however, inaccurate for this period as the Dalmatae didn't try to conquer, or invade other territories they mainly remained in a single area which was ultimatley conquered by the Romans in 76 BC (there were 3 Dalmatian wars from 156 BC - 76 BC). Plus having the Dalmatae represting Illyria would be again a bad idea because they would be too close to Macedon, Epeiros and the Getaii, thus would be destroyed early in the game, and without celtic/iranian support units they would be just a blend of Thracian, Greek and Illyrian forces.

However we could debate endlessly the question is, is there place in EB 2 for a Pannon/Illyrian faction, or are the slots already decided and closed?

[Arjos]

It seems you skipped over a very important fact I stated: in the 2nd century BC the Segestani, a Pannon tribe clashed with the Romans.

Is 2nd century BC still 200-101 BC for everyone or was changed?
In the end of the 3rd century BC that area was controlled and governed by Keltoi, having an independent pannonian tribe would be a fantasy, I suggested any tribe in dalmatia as that area was more or less independent...

[Diodredai]

Unless there was been a shift in the time-space continuum then no, it was not changed again let me reword the meaning behind this sentance: in the second century, a Pannonian subtribe defeated a Roman consular army that was headed by the two supreme generals of the Roman Empire. In my book, that is an incredible feat. Unfortunatley we do not know when Lucius Aurelius Cotta was born, only that he died (not in battle) in circa 144 BC [this is questionable, there are many Lucius Aurelius Cotta's, out of which at least two were consuls]. So I'll take the liberty of putting the battle between 180-170 BC. No other Illyrian tribe besides the Pannons could defeat the Romans, and every single revolt that errupted against Roman rule always started out on Pannon tribal territory. So the rise of the Pannon tribes can be placed in the EB timeline, whereas the rise of any other Illyrian peoples start some fifty to thirty years after 272.

[moonburn]

herm the way i see it it´s either teuta that crazy pirate queen or no faction in that area except for her and her tribe nobady else was important enough to face the kelts makedonians or dacians anyway

[Arjos]

I can't follow your logic in considering events a century later and using the criteria of "being able to defeat the Romani"...
Illyrians even helped Pyrrhus and his family not like they were an "inferior" or "unworthy" people not to even be considered for the game...

[Diodredai]

Arjos let me show you my interpretation of the events that occured in the questioned timeline: In 272 there is no major Illyrian faction however by 180-170-160 BC two events happened that place Illyria on the world map: The Pannon's resistance of the Romans being one, and Teuta's temporary alliance against the Romanii. So for this reason let's cut southern Illyria, or Dalmatia and Northern Illyria into two parts. We have three wars against Illyria: the reason: trade on the Adriatic was threatened by Illyrian pirates therefore the Romans start a series of campaigns, first in 229 BC against Teuta, the second against Demetrius of Pharos and the third against Gentius. This results in southern Illyria being conquered later on, whilst northern Illyria remaines independant for many years to come. Not to mention that Teuta's alliance was a temporary at best, whilst the Pannons gradually expanded throughout the decades bringing more tribes into their fold. Yes you are right the southern Illyrians of Apollonia helped Pyrrhus, and later on the Epeirot league. The Pannon's remained independant due to resisting Celtic influnces and the Romans, therefore they impacted events later on much more then their southern counterparts. In my book, they had a bigger role on the events to come, than the southern Illyrians.

Sir you misunderstood very much, and I consider the terms "inferior" and "unworthy" as terms that cannot be used when researching history, as history is written by the victors, therefore they decide on how future generations will precieve of other peoples. I am merely saying that the game engine is limited, and not all factions can be portrayed equally, therefore those factions that had a greater effect on the timeline are granted the playable slot, where as the others must be folded into the rebel faction.

I think I've stated my case, could we have some feedback on wether or not there will be an Illyrian faction? Either Pannon or non Pannon

[Arjos]

Ok with that I can agree...
But imo top criteria to include faction are these:

- Somewhat independent and relevant at the start date.
- Enough evidence to back it up properly.
- Expansionistic desire.

Now I don't know what the team uses, but including the Pannonias is comparable to the Eburones the way I see it, I think the suitable ones for the area are Skordiskoi or Illyrians...
Maybe we'll get few hints or a preview soon, who knows :P

[Diodredai]

- Somewhat independent and relevant at the start date.
- Enough evidence to back it up properly.
- Expansionistic desire.

And on that note I believe we have finished the discussion, yet again I shout out to our Europa Barbarorum II development overlords, is there a need for a unified Illyria?