New factions?

[Taliferno]

In any case, it isn't because Axum didn't have a diverse unit roster (they did, and have about 5 AOR units for that area in EB1) that they aren't being considered for EB2. Its because a precious culture slot would have to be given up to do them justice.

[lobf]

Yup. It would be mostly tribal African warriors with sticks and some swords, though if they could get access to Red Sea Hoplites, it would be very yummy. However, it wouldn't work anyway. The only room for expansion would be north, and to attack the Ptolemies turn 1 would be..suicidal.

Sticks and swords? This seems a little off to me. And the Ptolemies would have been African too, so I don't understand the distinction there.

Edit- And if it was just tribes with sticks how could they have been considered expansionist?

[Celtic_Punk]

Casse were pretty aggressive with their sticks n swords. The lonely Isles needs a new challenge for the Casse i think... Maybe Caledonians? the East is filled up nicely up to western Europe. the only places that seem a little empty are the isles and africa.

I mean the Saka and Skythians mostly faced independant tribes... but thats what it was like for them, if i am not mistaken? So I don't see any real reason to plop a new faction in there. but if possible the Saba should have a new neighbour (if there is supporting evidence of more than just bunch of smaller tribes, that is not my area of knowledge) for a challenge maybe. If not I definitely say either Caledonia or Goidllic, The casse don't really have any challenge to face all by their lonesome, and that usually pushes me away from having a campaign with them. I get quite bored sitting there with no face to my enemy.

Also could it have been possible that the Caledonians took Britain, if pushed into a situation with the Casse where they would have fought over the island? They were brave enough. The only question remains would they have been strong enough. After all EB is about recreating history, and those "what-if---?" questions right?

[Ludens]

Casse were pretty aggressive with their sticks n swords. The lonely Isles needs a new challenge for the Casse i think... Maybe Caledonians? the East is filled up nicely up to western Europe. the only places that seem a little empty are the isles and africa.

Every time someone mentions Caledonians in this thread I get a desire to hit him with those sticks n swords . Come on people, Caledonia was not a nation, it was a geographical indication. The Caledonians were a bunch of warring mountain tribes, not a unified force like the Aedui confedercy. Yes, they were not subjugated in EB's time-frame, but that was really due to their lack of sophistication (few roads or sizeable towns suitable for a garrison), and the terrain. There were several reasonably powerful and unified tribes in Britain, so why do people keep brining up the Caledonians?

[oudysseos]

Ludens, I dare you to try that hitting with sticks thing in Glasgow on a match night.

[Ludens]

Ludens, I dare you to try that hitting with sticks thing in Glasgow on a match night.

I did specify the location as "in this thread" (which would also imply the period of history as being EB's time frame, although I did not explicitly state this). However, the one time I was in Glasgow on a match night, it did seem to me that the Caledonians were a bunch of warring tribes.

[Ibrahim]

Sticks and swords? This seems a little off to me. And the Ptolemies would have been African too, so I don't understand the distinction there.

Edit- And if it was just tribes with sticks how could they have been considered expansionist?

he said tribal africans?

anyways: what hax meant was that the soldier's from that time and place lacked the quality in weaponry that their neighbors had-so their spears when compared to the models used by their neighbors (ptolemioi, saba, AS), were nothing but "sticks".

as for how they could be expansionistic: ever heard of the Zulu? It works the same way. its not a matter of weapons, but rather will.

my advice: don't take everything said literally.

otherwise, I'd have to agree: no Nubians, and no Caledonians; the caledonians were fragmented, and the nubians too militarily weak (technology wise?).

[lobf]

he said tribal africans?

There's an easy way to find out...

anyways: what hax meant was that the soldier's from that time and place lacked the quality in weaponry that their neighbors had-so their spears when compared to the models used by their neighbors (ptolemioi, saba, AS), were nothing but "sticks".

Source?

as for how they could be expansionistic: ever heard of the Zulu? It works the same way. its not a matter of weapons, but rather will.

Jared Diamond and I would disagree vehemently.

my advice: don't take everything said literally.

I can't stand when people say this. I can only go off of what's said. If what's said isn't what was meant to be said, don't say it.

[Danubius]

Hello ppl :D
I'm new here, just registered, though I started playing EB 1 year ago.
I'm sorry if what I suggested here might have already been suggested, as I haven't read everything here.

EB II and the new factions that might be in it are of big interest to me, so here's my suggestions.

First of all, another Iberian faction. Most of the times I played, the Lusitani became a superpower before 200 BC. They quickly overwhelmed the carthaginians in the south, took advantage of the romans, arveni, aedui and sweboz fighting for supremacy, and conquered most of the teritory between the Iberian peninsula, Skandza, and even went after the baltic areas till the Gava Roxalanna.
Also another faction that becomes overpowerfull is Baktria. They need some more competition there. I don't know if a new faction would be needed, but a stronger Parthia that won't always ally with Baktria till the end of the game.
As I've played alot with the getae, greeks, macedonians, epirots and romans, on the hardest difficulty I've always had to repell later on in the game sieges from both a lusitanian empire in the west and a baktrian one in the east, and to fight the same battles every turn was a real pain :(

Also, I've seen the cimbrii and the teutones. I think it would be a good idea if they would be a nonplayable faction that invades at their historicall time, like the mongols and timurids are in MTW2. It would add more spice to the game, as historically they came out of nowhere and were a surprise for both the celts and the romans of that period.

A very good ideea I've seen here is a new celtic faction near the dacians, either the boii, tauriscii or scordiscii. It would make a more interesting game for the getai, a faction with wich I played alot, and the only serious competition they have most of the time is in the south where there are the epirots, macedonians and greeks.
Scythians and bastarnians would also make eastern europe more interesting, as they would be a big competition for the getae and sauromatae, and they were historically present and very important in the region.

Numidia should be brought back. The carthaginians, although loosing Iberia, always conquer the ptolemaioi who are busy with seleukia in the east, and fall easy prey from the west. Numidia would ballance that. It's a pity they never included it in EB :(
Another ideea would be the kingdom of Mauritania, though research on their armies is very little and would be a real challenge to represent actual units.
A nubian or kushite faction in the south would be great as it did exist in that time period, although it did not have a too big importance, as they were kept at bay by the ptolemaioi and the romans. Still, the ptolemaioi conquer the south too easy. Maybe a small faction of the nubians would ballance that, and they didn't even had a diversified military, so a small number of units like the Aithiopikoi Toxotai, Hanatim Kushim, Aithiopikoi Machairophoroi and Aithiopikoi Hippeis would be enough for them for the start.

And the last I've been thinking are the galatians. They would make Asia Minor alot more fun, as Pergam will be included, galatians should also be included. In EB, the AI arveni, if they get Galatia, they don't last but a few turns, so an independent faction, strong at the beginning so they won't be conquered by their neighbours, would be welcome :D

That's all I've thought of for now lol

[Ludens]

Jared Diamond and I would disagree vehemently.

Since Diamond quite often cites the rapid expansion of the stone-age Polynesians, I am not sure.

Danubius, welcome to the Org and EB .

A lot of your suggestions are good candidates, although you should keep in mind that EB does not add factions in order to balance others. There are better ways of doing that.

A few minor things: in EB's time, the Scyths were almost gone as a major power, superseded by the Sarmatians. They won't be making an appearance. Possible candidates in the area are the Bastarnae, the Bosporean Greek kingdom and the Celtic Lugians. I haven't heard the Tauriscii suggested yet: could you tell us a bit more about them?

As for the Cimbri and Teutones, they may have come as a surprise for the Romans, but that does not mean they came out of nowhere. It's going to be highly ahistorical if a Sweboz player is suddenly confronted with a horde that has spawned in his territory. There may be another German faction (although I think the chances of it are low), but they will be present at the start, as they were historically.

[lobf]

Since Diamond quite often cites the rapid expansion of the stone-age Polynesians, I am not sure.

The Polynesians weren't an expansionist state. They were a group of people who were the first to populate a given area. That's like saying ice-age humans were expansionist because they populated the Americas.

We're talking about established, food producing states duking it out.

[penguinking]

he said tribal
as for how they could be expansionistic: ever heard of the Zulu? It works the same way. its not a matter of weapons, but rather will.

Actually much of Zulu success is due to military reforms in weaponry, including replacing the previously used unwieldy throwing spears with shorter stabbing spears and increasing the size of the shield. This gave them a huge advantage over neighboring tribes.

[Danubius]

Danubius, welcome to the Org and EB .

A lot of your suggestions are good candidates, although you should keep in mind that EB does not add factions in order to balance others. There are better ways of doing that.

A few minor things: in EB's time, the Scyths were almost gone as a major power, superseded by the Sarmatians. They won't be making an appearance. Possible candidates in the area are the Bastarnae, the Bosporean Greek kingdom and the Celtic Lugians. I haven't heard the Tauriscii suggested yet: could you tell us a bit more about them?

As for the Cimbri and Teutones, they may have come as a surprise for the Romans, but that does not mean they came out of nowhere. It's going to be highly ahistorical if a Sweboz player is suddenly confronted with a horde that has spawned in his territory. There may be another German faction (although I think the chances of it are low), but they will be present at the start, as they were historically.

First of all thank you for welcoming me

You are right, the scythians were not a major power in that time. A Bosphorean Kingdom would be nice, as those 2 cities in the Crimean Peninsula are always a powerhouse of income
The bastarnae are good candidates in my opinion. They were strong in their region, defeated the dacians in the east and it was very hard for the dacians to finally stop their expansion. They had a major impact in the area as it took hundreds of years for the native dacian population to assimilate them.

As for the tauriscii, they were a celtic tribe, most likely related to the boii and the scordiscii, that were neighbours of the dacians in the west. It's an interesting thing that we in Romania have the 2 words bou (pl. boi), meaning castrated bull and taur meaning bull. Also in old latin there are the forms of taurus and bovinae/bovis, so this has made many historians come to the conclusion that the boii and the tauriscii were closely related, and were maybe gives those names asociated with cattle because of their helmets being ornate with horns. The scordiscii were also closely related to the boii and tauriscii. They founded Singidunum (Belgrad) and had near another city named Taurunum (now part of Belgrad, but in the ancient and medieval period was a distinct city). Again the connection with cattle.
Historically, the boii, tauriscii and scordiscii formed a coalition most of the time against the dacians. They were highly influencial to my ancestors because it is believed they first introduced iron craftmanship and weapons to the dacians. They were only conquered by the getae-dacians when Burebista managed to unite most of the dacian and getae tribes, thus forming a strong army able to defeat the celts in the west.
This says much about these 3 celtic tribes and their importance and strenght in the region. Of course you can't have 3 small factions to represent them, so maybe the best is the boii since historically they were the strongest in the region (having branches of them migrating even to Italy and Gaul), but also with units representing the tauriscii and scordiscii.

And yes it might be a problem for the sweboz if the cimbrii and teutones invade later on from nowhere. I did not say they were a surprise for other germanic tribes, only for celts and romans. You could fix this problem by making the cimbrii and teutones faction already allied to the sweboz when they appear. This way they would avoid attacking the sweboz and migrate south to pick on the celts and romans. In MTW2 for example, if you manage to ally with the mongols or timurids shortly after they invade, most of the time they avoid you, pass trough your territory and then attack other factions.

And since we were talking about celts, how's about making a Helveti faction?

[Ludens]

The Polynesians weren't an expansionist state. They were a group of people who were the first to populate a given area. That's like saying ice-age humans were expansionist because they populated the Americas.

We're talking about established, food producing states duking it out.

You're absolutely right. I apparently wasn't quite awake yesterday evening.

And yes it might be a problem for the sweboz if the cimbrii and teutones invade later on from nowhere. I did not say they were a surprise for other germanic tribes, only for celts and romans. You could fix this problem by making the cimbrii and teutones faction already allied to the sweboz when they appear. This way they would avoid attacking the sweboz and migrate south to pick on the celts and romans. In MTW2 for example, if you manage to ally with the mongols or timurids shortly after they invade, most of the time they avoid you, pass trough your territory and then attack other factions.

And since we were talking about celts, how's about making a Helveti faction?

Interesting information about the Taurisci. However, the number of factions is limited, so it's going to be the Boii most likely. The Helvetii would IIRC be a part of the Alpine Boii confederacy. As for the Cimbri, why do you insist they must be emerging? Don't you think they were living somewhere and started moving because their neighbours or natural disasters displaced them?

[Danubius]

Interesting information about the Taurisci. However, the number of factions is limited, so it's going to be the Boii most likely. The Helvetii would IIRC be a part of the Alpine Boii confederacy. As for the Cimbri, why do you insist they must be emerging? Don't you think they were living somewhere and started moving because their neighbours or natural disasters displaced them?

Yes what you say is true. The only problem is we don't know where exactly the cimbrii, teutones and the smaller tribe of the ambrones, the 3 main tribes that migrated, were originally located. Sources say in Jutland, but it has not been determined exactly and cannot be determined exactly. We must also take into consideration a problem, these tribes made a massive migration for that period, fighting celts (boii, arveni) alpine populations of mixed origins, and of course romans. Now we know that the Jutland peninsula in that period could not support a population that could muster an army wich would later defeat arveni or romans, who could muster a bigger army than 3 tribes originating in Jutland. So most likely these 3 tribes were joined by other tribes of celts and germanics on their way to Italy. Even if they had the whole population on the move, it's very hard to replenish casualties sustained in the several years in wich the migration took place.
That's why I think they should emerge as strong hordes, because if they start from the beginning, they will most likely be weak, unless the script is changed so that their faction starts with an advantage. But this would be unhistorical, since they did not have an advantage upon any of their neighbouring tribes in 270 BC.

Also I have a question
If the boii are to be eventually added as a faction in EB II, will they have horned symbols on their shields and maybe their elite units horned helmets? Of course not hollywood style horned helmets, but something like this (although it was found in Britain, I'm sure it was not something spontaneous there):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ish-Museum.jpg
Because it's clear they had a bull symbol, hence the names related to the bull, if we are to consider that their name derives from bull (as ther are also other theories regarding their name).

[MeinPanzer]

anyways: what hax meant was that the soldier's from that time and place lacked the quality in weaponry that their neighbors had-so their spears when compared to the models used by their neighbors (ptolemioi, saba, AS), were nothing but "sticks".

This statement is completely unfounded. Would you like to provide some sources attesting to the lack in quality of Meroitic arms at this time?

[Megas Methuselah]

But this would be unhistorical, since they did not have an advantage upon any of their neighbouring tribes in 270 BC.

Then why include them? IIRC, EB portrays factions that were important at the game's start date. From that point on, history is in the hands of the player.

Besides, the EB Team seemingly avoids emerging factions...

This statement is completely unfounded. Would you like to provide some sources attesting to the lack in quality of Meroitic arms at this time?

Heh heh. You just backed Ibrahim into a corner with a knife at his throat...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Besides, the EB Team seemingly avoids emerging factions...

Because it would be a pain to rampage through Italy as Carthage only to have 3 army stacks of Romans to appear after taking their last city.

[Ludens]

Yes what you say is true. The only problem is we don't know where exactly the cimbrii, teutones and the smaller tribe of the ambrones, the 3 main tribes that migrated, were originally located. Sources say in Jutland, but it has not been determined exactly and cannot be determined exactly. We must also take into consideration a problem, these tribes made a massive migration for that period, fighting celts (boii, arveni) alpine populations of mixed origins, and of course romans. Now we know that the Jutland peninsula in that period could not support a population that could muster an army wich would later defeat arveni or romans, who could muster a bigger army than 3 tribes originating in Jutland. So most likely these 3 tribes were joined by other tribes of celts and germanics on their way to Italy. Even if they had the whole population on the move, it's very hard to replenish casualties sustained in the several years in wich the migration took place.
That's why I think they should emerge as strong hordes, because if they start from the beginning, they will most likely be weak, unless the script is changed so that their faction starts with an advantage. But this would be unhistorical, since they did not have an advantage upon any of their neighbouring tribes in 270 BC.

You are not exactly helping your case here: if we don't know where they lived, then where should the horde spawn? Or if they were so weak, how did they become so strong? The answer is they weren't, really. It was mostly sheer numbers that made other tribes let them through. A displaced population per definition mobilizes 100% of its fighting-age males, and although these mostly won't be very good, they will fight hard because they are desperate. Yes, they gave the Romans a scare, but this was mostly due to incompetent Roman leadership, and the resultant string of defeats destroyed Roman morale. It actually took only two successful battles by a good Roman general to disperse them.

[General Appo]

This discussion is pretty pointless anyway, as the EB team has already stated that absolutely zero (0) emergent factions will appear in EB2.

[Megas Methuselah]

Because it would be a pain to rampage through Italy as Carthage only to have 3 army stacks of Romans to appear after taking their last city.

I didn't meant to appear as if I support emerging factions, so stop dropping insulting hints on me.

Besides, that situation is a horde, not an emergent faction. Get your facts straightened out, ACIN.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Emerging/reemerging factions require the horde option. That said, just because you have an emerging faction doesn't mean that you need all factions to horde.

[eddy_purpus]

Originally Posted by Hax View Post
Yup. It would be mostly tribal African warriors with sticks and some swords, though if they could get access to Red Sea Hoplites, it would be very yummy. However, it wouldn't work anyway. The only room for expansion would be north, and to attack the Ptolemies turn 1 would be..suicidal.

Lol at the sticks...
dude use some history ...
sticks = spears
swords= ........ swords ?
hahahahah muahahahha

[Hax]

dude use some history ...

Yes.

"Use" some history.

Also;

stick:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spear;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dude, "use" some typing lessons.

[oudysseos]

Pwned

[ziegenpeter]

Then why include them? IIRC, EB portrays factions that were important at the game's start date. From that point on, history is in the hands of the player.

Well, then why did the sweboz made it in before Pergamon? I think gameplay reasons play nevertheless a decent role...

[lobf]

Yes.

"Use" some history.

Also;

stick:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spear;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dude, "use" some typing lessons.

You're not still standing behind your (at least partially) racist assessment of "tribal" Africans from Ethiopia, are you?

[Subotan]

Au Wikipedia;

Other historians believe it was the attraction of iron working that drove the Kushites to move their capital south to Meroë, unlike Napata, there were large forests that could fire the blast furnaces. The arrival of Greek merchants throughout the region also meant that Kush was no longer dependent on trade along the Nile. Instead, it could export its goods to the Red Sea and the Greek trading colonies there.

They also fought wars against the Romans and won some battles. How could they have done that if they'd had sticks?

[Marcus Ulpius]

I've checked this thread searching for EBII factions list somewhere, but found none. No such thing was also in a FAQ, so I'll propose some factions although I'm sure they were most likely mentioned by someone before:

Numidians - they've played an active role during the Punic wars and in Carthie African situation, also Africa is more or less empty, so it could make things more interesting there.

Thracians - I know that after Lysimachos defeat they weren't much of a force, but I think adding them may lead to some new interesting options in that region. Btw, Getae were also not a single entity, yet they are in game and uniting the tribes is one of their campaign objectives, for Thracians that could be making Lysimachus dreams come true :)

Pergamon - I'm nearly sure, someone had mentioned it, but it's a pity they were omitted in EB I, the only counter argument is that they will make an already overcrowded Asia Minor hard as hell to play for minor factions.

[Megas Methuselah]

Pergamon - I'm nearly sure, someone had mentioned it, but it's a pity they were omitted in EB I, the only counter argument is that they will make an already overcrowded Asia Minor hard as hell to play for minor factions.

Hooooo boy! You're in for a treat!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103202