New factions?

[Strategos Alexandros]

and that's what I'm reffering to!!!. All they've achieved is petty survival between surrounding muscle-states. They're pawns or to be more polite client-states and you'd get used to aknowledge that fact!!!.
Pergamon biggest achievement was causing war between SPQR vs Arche, despite the fact the war was inevitable anyways.

They did hold a fair amount of Asia Minor at one point, and IIRC some of Thrace too.

[Hax]

and that's what I'm reffering to!!!. All they've achieved is petty survival between surrounding muscle-states. They're pawns or to be more polite client-states and you'd get used to aknowledge that fact!!!.

Yeah. Except the fact that they pretty much held all of Mikra Asia to the Taurus Mountains at one point. They were really just a pawn, you're right. I'm sure the EB team will have to delete Pergamon from the faction roster now. Your evidence is clearly overwhelming.

[Foytaz]

Yeah. Except the fact that they pretty much held all of Mikra Asia to the Taurus Mountains at one point. They were really just a pawn, you're right. I'm sure the EB team will have to delete Pergamon from the faction roster now. Your evidence is clearly overwhelming.

They did hold a fair amount of Asia Minor at one point, and IIRC some of Thrace too.

yes they possessions were really asthonishing compared to Arche, Ptolemaoi and Pontus and they played key role in regional politics, not mention that states like Arche or Makedonia are always considered their voice as so much important. Buch of petty states with size of two satrapies must be very important for EB2 balance.
The very evidence of yours based at territorial holdings is not even ridiculous but...
Well then, elaborate what those petty client-states did achieved, except for being subservient due these 150 years (EB timeframe) that make them so important for the whole gameplay accuracy.

[bovi]

I hope EB Team won't implement them as they were nothing more than pawns for Makedonia, Epeiros, Arche, Ptolemaoi and latter on SPQR. Adding those will only slow down the game and make unneccesary boring intervals due the campaign.
...
yes they possessions were really asthonishing compared to Arche, Ptolemaoi and Pontus and they played key role in regional politics, not mention that states like Arche or Makedonia are always considered their voice as so much important. Buch of petty states with size of two satrapies must be very important for EB2 balance.
The very evidence of yours based at territorial holdings is not even ridiculous but...
Well then, elaborate what those petty client-states did achieved, except for being subservient due these 150 years (EB timeframe) that make them so important for the whole gameplay accuracy.

You are missing that EB's primary goal is to recreate the ancient world as precisely as possible and increase knowledge about history, not cater to any particular type of player.

[Foytaz]

You are missing that EB's primary goal is to recreate the ancient world as precisely as possible and increase knowledge about history, not cater to any particular type of player.

Agree about cares for historical accuracy but quantity over quality 'technology' won't lead anywhere good. After all EB2 is completly up to it team and that's great about it. What I'm trying to say that petty client states are perfect for mini-mod rather than huge project EB2 aims to.

[Hax]

Pergamon wasn't a "petty client state".

[General Appo]

Foytaz, have you read Stele 6? Perhaps if you did it would change your view of Pergamon.

[Jolt]

Pergamon wasn't a "petty client state".

It was a petty client state, allowed to exist only by the sole good will of our Great Lord Zeus, who didn't managed to arrange more armies to Seleucia/Bithynia/Macedonia/Galatia so they could wipe them off the map. All part of Zeus plan, I say!

[Cyrus]

Excuse me but i beleve i posted "i think the basc people would be an other good tribe for iberia" any comments? i dunno like if it could be possible or not?

[Sir Edward]

Excuse me but i beleve i posted "i think the basc people would be an other good tribe for iberia" any comments? i dunno like if it could be possible or not?

You believe, your not sure if you posted or not? I'll help you out by doing a simple function called a search. Post number 229 by Sarcasm in this very thread gives a very insightful explanation in to why the Basque will not be a faction in EB II. I have to say while what the spanish government (and to lesser extent the french governement) has done to snuff out the unique culture of the Basque is upsetting that does not mean history should be rewritten in to making this people in to something they never were.

IMHO the Arevaci of the Celtiberians would be a better faction choice to represent the diversity of people located on the Iberian Peninsula during EB II timeframe.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Agree about cares for historical accuracy but quantity over quality 'technology' won't lead anywhere good. After all EB2 is completly up to it team and that's great about it. What I'm trying to say that petty client states are perfect for mini-mod rather than huge project EB2 aims to.

Just out of interest, what faction would you suggest instead?

[bovi]

I'd be glad to see more diversification of already existed factions instead new ones....

So, none.

[Viking_Wårlord]

MORE GERMANIC FACTIONS!

Sorry but I had to...2 Germanic factions aren't enough, do at least 3.(You weren't bothered by doing 4Celtic factions!)

Support from Viking_Wårlord and I'm now going back to Ribe(finished raiding the eastern coast of England)

[Viking_Wårlord]

I also think a Jewish faction would be great but it wouldn't stick with the era I think...unless I'm wrong!

[Ludens]

MORE GERMANIC FACTIONS!

Sorry but I had to...2 Germanic factions aren't enough, do at least 3.(You weren't bothered by doing 4Celtic factions!)

I also think a Jewish faction would be great but it wouldn't stick with the era I think...unless I'm wrong!

Well, there was the Maccabean rebellion, but it's not going to be included because it occurred well after the starting-date and lasted just 20 years. They weren't world-conquering material either. As for the reasons why there are more Celtic factions: it's because the Celts were politically more sophisticated and therefore more likely to form an empire.

BTW, please don't double post. Use the edit button.

[Foytaz]

Just out of interest, what faction would you suggest instead?

I think Hellenic world is fullfilled for good, already present ones are enough for now.
Numidia wouldn't be bad choice anyways as one of most important players in western afican coast, plus they outlived Carthage and have given couple of nasty surprises to Romans latter on in time.
Some people often mention second germanic basis faction, maybe that's good idea too.
And on the other hand if Pergamon is in already then why not add Syracuse f.e.???, lots of similarities don't you think???

[Viking_Wårlord]

"it's because the Celts were politically more sophisticated and therefore more likely to form an empire."

False, Celts had no political structure....a part from being a tribe of course, the Celts were never united and more often hated themselves even more than they hated rome!

For what's of Germans, they did have a political structure as Tacitus describes a 'regular meeting of chieftains each time of the year'...he was then talking of the 'Þing'(or thing)...indeed a meeting that was used to put an end to wars between different tribes and to solve problems.
The Þing would be known as ÅlÞing to the Vikings, the Icelandic place of these meetings was called 'Þingvellir'...and it still is today.

So Germans did have a political structure...Sorry but you're wrong.

[Foot]

"it's because the Celts were politically more sophisticated and therefore more likely to form an empire."

False, Celts had no political structure....a part from being a tribe of course, the Celts were never united and more often hated themselves even more than they hated rome!

For what's of Germans, they did have a political structure as Tacitus describes a 'regular meeting of chieftains each time of the year'...he was then talking of the 'Þing'(or thing)...indeed a meeting that was used to put an end to wars between different tribes and to solve problems.
The Þing would be known as ÅlÞing to the Vikings, the Icelandic place of these meetings was called 'Þingvellir'...and it still is today.

So Germans did have a political structure...Sorry but you're wrong.

Actually you are wrong on both accounts. Ludens did not say that Germans did not have a political structure, he said that their political structure was less sophisticated.

Celts certainly did have a very complex political structure, the Aedui were ruled by a senate-like structure, as were many other tribes. The Galatians were ruled by four kings, which would have required a very complex constitution. The Gallic tribes would meet every year in the land of the Carnutes to discuss diplomacy under the auspices of the druidic council.

What we do lack on the Germans is detailed evidence (both textual and archaelogical) of the tribes during the beginning of our timeframe. It is only when tacticus reports on them that they really start entering the roman record, and that is some way after our start date.

Foot

[Viking_Wårlord]

Actually you are wrong on both accounts. Ludens did not say that Germans did not have a political structure, he said that their political structure was less sophisticated.

Celts certainly did have a very complex political structure, the Aedui were ruled by a senate-like structure, as were many other tribes. The Galatians were ruled by four kings, which would have required a very complex constitution. The Gallic tribes would meet every year in the land of the Carnutes to discuss diplomacy under the auspices of the druidic council.

What we do lack on the Germans is detailed evidence (both textual and archaelogical) of the tribes during the beginning of our timeframe. It is only when tacticus reports on them that they really start entering the roman record, and that is some way after our start date.

Foot

Celts had their 'rix' elected by the druidic council....druids were also charged of education,poetry and healing...their political influence was great>druids had knowledege,the others didn't!

We do not lack of evidence about Germanic political organization, what we lack is how we trust those who've written about their political strucutre because they were all Roman and may have exagerated their writings.


Though I was right about the Þing because we still find it in the republic of Iceland (the parliament is called 'ÅlÞing,check for yourself)!

[General Appo]

Numidia wouldn't be bad choice anyways as one of most important players in western afican coast, plus they outlived Carthage and have given couple of nasty surprises to Romans latter on in time.
Some people often mention second germanic basis faction, maybe that's good idea too.

Okay, that´s 2 factions, 8 to go. And remember, it can´t be Pergamon, or any faction in the Hellenic world at all.
Man, I´m just so excited to see where you´re gonna find place outside the Hellenic world to cramp in 8 new factions.

[Taliferno]

Okay, that´s 2 factions, 8 to go. And remember, it can´t be Pergamon, or any faction in the Hellenic world at all.
Man, I´m just so excited to see where you´re gonna find place outside the Hellenic world to cramp in 8 new factions.

Just off the top of my head:

1: Numidia (Western part)
2: Veneti
3: Caucasian Iberia
4: A Celtiberian tribe
5: Ulaid or Erain
6: Remanents of the Scythians
7: Belgi
8: Northern part of the Mauryan Empire
9: Illyrian tribe
10: A German Tribe

So yes, it is kind of possible to have 10 new non hellenic factions (though some hellenic influenced) in EB2, but its quite difficult sorting out which tribe was were in the time period or if they even existed yet. This is probably the reason why most of the guesses on this thread have been included a high proportion of hellenic factions as much information about what they were up to at the time is on the web.

If you think one or two people complaining about hellenic factions is bad, wait for the hundreds complaining about the "barbarians" (if the new factions included is like the one above)

I for one like hellenic factions though and hope a few are included. Also means they can share at least a few basic units from EB, leaving more room for new units in EB2.

[Foytaz]

[QUOTE=General Appo;2063440Man, I´m just so excited to see where you´re gonna find place outside the Hellenic world to cramp in 8 new factions.[/QUOTE]

Go north and east and you'll find them. Lack of evidence about germanic tribes would be a problem thoug.

[Cyrus]

You believe, your not sure if you posted or not? I'll help you out by doing a simple function called a search. Post number 229 by Sarcasm in this very thread gives a very insightful explanation in to why the Basque will not be a faction in EB II. I have to say while what the spanish government (and to lesser extent the french governement) has done to snuff out the unique culture of the Basque is upsetting that does not mean history should be rewritten in to making this people in to something they never were.

IMHO the Arevaci of the Celtiberians would be a better faction choice to represent the diversity of people located on the Iberian Peninsula during EB II timeframe.

Well i am certanly sorry if i haven't read every single one of the 1041 posts of this thread,also i don't know if you are familiar with the sarcastic expression "i belive" it may mean i'm not shure but in this case it means i know.

[Conqueror]

1: Numidia (Western part)
2: Veneti
3: Caucasian Iberia
4: A Celtiberian tribe
5: Ulaid or Erain
6: Remanents of the Scythians
7: Belgi
8: Northern part of the Mauryan Empire
9: Illyrian tribe
10: A German Tribe

Keep in mind that these (not just some but all of them) should be both:

1. more powerful/influential than Pergamon at their peak during the timeframe and
2. with enough information available on them to be feasibly represented as factions,

in order to justify giving Pergamon the boot (going by Foytaz's argument that Pergamon wasn't significant enough to deserve a place in EBII).

[General Appo]

Indeed. If Pergamon was "just a petty client-state" then surely the Illyrians must be...well, utterly unimportant compared to Pergamon at least.

Btw, Mauryan empire will not be in because of reasons explained about 30,000 times.

[Foytaz]

Keep in mind that these (not just some but all of them) should be both:

1. more powerful/influential than Pergamon at their peak during the timeframe and
2. with enough information available on them to be feasibly represented as factions,

in order to justify giving Pergamon the boot (going by Foytaz's argument that Pergamon wasn't significant enough to deserve a place in EBII).

isn't number of provinces hardcoded actually???, so tell me prey how do you implement those Pergamon, Bosphorus and Gods know what else in Asia Mikra?, mind that Arche, Ptolemaioi, Makedonia and Pontus had their holdings as well. Doesn't it mean you'll have to merge other provinces to keep their numbers in balance according to 10 new hellenic factions???
It'd become EB - Hellenes instead of EB2 imo.

[Phalanx300]

The Provinces for alot of new factions are probably already there(in EB1 map). And also, how can these new factions not be 1 city factions? Enough factions of EB1 are. So you don't have to look out for the Province limit.

[Foytaz]

The Provinces for alot of new factions are probably already there(in EB1 map). And also, how can these new factions not be 1 city factions? Enough factions of EB1 are. So you don't have to look out for the Province limit.

One-city factions do sound good for EB2-minimod but would be weird in complex mod imo. Anyways everything about EB2 is up to the team so our quarrels are pure academic

[Strategos Alexandros]

I don't think that they should all be Hellenic factions. I would like to see Pergamon, a Bosphorean facton and possibly Massalia but given the choice I would put the inclusion of another Celtic or Germanic faction over that of Bosphorus or Massalia. And to answer your question about provinces, there are already provinces for Pergamon, Syracuse, Massalia and Kyrene as well as two provinces for Bosphorus. I don't think all five of these should be in, but...
Edit: Casse, Getai, Sweboz, Pontus, Saka, Saba, Lusotannan, Hayasdan and AFAIK Pahlava are all one city factions. And besides, quarreling is fun :D

[Viking_Wårlord]

"I would put the inclusion of another Celtic or Germanic faction over that of Bosphorus or Massalia. "

Why the hell do we need another Celtic faction?
There's already 4 of them!
And only 1 Germanic!

We should put 2 more Germanic factions, a Basque faction,a proto-Slavic one and ,if possible; a Jewish faction!