Faction List for EB2?

[-Praetor-]

Well then cut britain out?

The EB team won't cut a single province off of the British Isles. That has been already decided.

[lobf]

You could argue the same thing for Hay or Baktria. Both

In terms of keeping the Casse, it ensures that Britain is not a joke to take as the Sweboz or Gallic factions. Historically, you are correct, no tribe united the isle before the Romans arrived. However its addition imo is merited both to make the isle harder to take and also because British tribes did lend money and possibly troops to help their Gallic and Belgic allies during Caesars wars in Gaul.

Also, remember the game is about presenting the situation at 272 and letting everything go from there. What did or didn't happen makes no difference.

But these are gameplay considerations rather than historical ones, which the EB team constantly distinguishes as criteria for inclusion.

[ziegenpeter]

The EB team won't cut a single province off of the British Isles. That has been already decided.

Ok I was a bit polemic there. What
What I meant is "The fact that the British Isles are on the map shouldn't be the single or a major reason for keeping casse as a faction in game because you could cut them out"
And don't get me wrong, I don't raise the plea that Casse should be kicked out.

[WarpGhost]

I'm inclined to agree on the Casse analysis; my heart says keep them in, but my head points out that, especially with the game having the restrictions on units/factions/provinces it does, it does make a lot more sense to invest the potential savings elsewhere, where they can be more consistantly useful. Dont get me wrong, one of my favourite things about EB was that it included factions like Baktria and Epeiros; but because of both geography and AI limitations, this is one of the cases (like with Pergamon and many of the potentials on the list) I would argue the other way.

[ziegenpeter]

The questions are: How many other potential factions we know enough about that they could be included as a facion? Did they expand/were a miltary power? And would they add variety to the game? I think the last point is also important since I'd rather let Casse and/or Saba in than having a gazillion of exchangeable hellenic factions. Finally we should consider the starting point of a potential replacement for a "peripherical" faction, because replacing Casse by another faction on the outer rims of the map would't make any sense, right?

[WarpGhost]

Casse represent something of a particularly questionable faction because they arent just peripheral, they're peripheral and strongly seperated geographically, which takes them to a whole different level of peripheral. Saba arent quite as bad, but the empty distances involved do put them towards that level too. Even Sarmations, Saka and Sweboz have regular and notable contact with 2-3 other factions. Thats because though peripheral, their geography doesnt create significant inherent problems to their ability to impact the game. Also, dont forget that the more factions you add to the periphery, the more contact you create for those around them too.

[athanaric]

OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...

[ziegenpeter]

Casse represent something of a particularly questionable faction because they arent just peripheral, they're peripheral and strongly seperated geographically, which takes them to a whole different level of peripheral. Saba arent quite as bad, but the empty distances involved do put them towards that level too. Even Sarmations, Saka and Sweboz have regular and notable contact with 2-3 other factions. Thats because though peripheral, their geography doesnt create significant inherent problems to their ability to impact the game. Also, dont forget that the more factions you add to the periphery, the more contact you create for those around them too.

Agreed.

[WarpGhost]

OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...

The problem with that is two-fold as I see it:

1) The AI isnt exactly proven at being able to cope with it. If both Casse and the other factions were able to easily handle the geographic obstacles, it wouldnt be a problem at all (if only Casse can, then you create the additional problems as when a human plays them, rather than really solving anything).

2) You create the situation whereby nothing is solved if their influence is removed from Begium (it immediatly reverts to the same geographic problem as current); but also where they also have untouched heartlands from which to generate money (and possibly the occassional 'naval invasion' to drop off reinforcements, which the AI presumably manages better than actual aggressive naval invasions), which makes their influence disproportionate to the Belgium region itself when they retain it.

[bobbin]

You guys are forgetting EBII's going to be on Kingdoms, naval invasions are much more common in that game which will mean the Casse won't be as isolated (or safe) as they are in EB.

[lobf]

OTOH, Casse have their close relatives on the "continent", which might be a cause for their interference on behalf of the Belgae, should a foreign faction (Swêboz, Romani, ...) try to take the "Belgian" provinces. Of course, should an independent Belgian faction be included in EB II, this argument is kind of weakened...

Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?

You guys are forgetting EBII's going to be on Kingdoms, naval invasions are much more common in that game which will mean the Casse won't be as isolated (or safe) as they are in EB.

That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.

[The General]

Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?

Yes. Well, Divitiacus was a Belgae king, but he held power in Britain, from which we can deduct that there was interaction between the two regions.

That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.

Uhm, what? If anything, creation of cash cow regions is a terrible reason not to include a faction.

Even if Britain was not as developed as Gaul, Cassivellaunus had waged war against several other British tribes, so there was effort by tribes to exert control over each other through the use of arms and create hegemony, and not just patronus-cliens-relationships.

Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)

[bobbin]

Did the "Casse" (I expect a name change, too) actually do this? Is there evidence of them interfering in continental politics?

They're the Catuvellauni of later times who Caeser accused of supporting the gauls and belgae in their wars with him.

That is no justification for a faction. In fact, if there's good naval invasions, it would be a plus to not have a faction, IMO. It will make it a prize to be contested over by the continental powers, and not just a money generating machine for whomever starts there.

It also makes any faction there more active on the continent and more open to invasion by continental powers which is essentaily fixes (hopefully) the main problems people have with the Casse (that they never seem to do anything beyond conquering britain and they never face any real threat from other factions).

[lobf]

Yes. Well, Divitiacus was a Belgae king, but he held power in Britain, from which we can deduct that there was interaction between the two regions.

100+ years after the start date?

Not to mention, this kind of supports my case that the isles were a prize for the continental powers rather than the home of a faction-worthy political institution.

Uhm, what? If anything, creation of cash cow regions is a terrible reason not to include a faction.

It doesn't seem accurate for that region at that time. I don't think Britain was a center of great wealth in the world, which it turns into once the isles are united (because of the way the game engine works)

Even if Britain was not as developed as Gaul, Cassivellaunus had waged war against several other British tribes, so there was effort by tribes to exert control over each other through the use of arms and create hegemony, and not just patronus-cliens-relationships.

Are you saying this is unique? Name a tribe that doesn't wage war with neighboring tribes. I'm wondering when a significant political entity actually emerged in the Isles, rather than a series of waning and waxing tribes.

Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)

Yes, it has. I'm just disagreeing with one selection.

They're the Catuvellauni of later times who Caeser accused of supporting the gauls and belgae in their wars with him.


It also makes any faction there more active on the continent and more open to invasion by continental powers which is essentaily fixes (hopefully) the main problems people have with the Casse (that they never seem to do anything beyond conquering britain and they never face any real threat from other factions).

What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?

[WarpGhost]

Also, has it not been mentioned that all the factions of EBI are going to make it in EBII? (Unless I'm gravely mistaken)

Yes, but the EB team likes to make the point that its always open to reconsidering what its doing. So unless thats untrue, there's a fair number of people who still arent convinced about Casse, and their questions havent been addressed (although the official Saba answers I've seen have been more hand-wavey than solid game design sense, so its possible Casse inclusion isnt being taken as a mechanics question, as most non-EB posters are approaching it here; part of the justification for Saba I've seen was because of the importance of the Arabian peninsula in modern times, rather than a purely ancient history approach).

[eddy_purpus]

It hasn't been decided, but we'll probably want to keep these secret, and then slowly release them over time. Just to piss you guys off! There are some definites that we've already decided on (though we havent done any voting on them yet); factions that lost out to the saba and saka vote, when we put those two factions in.

Personally I would love to start working on EB2 when the next patch comes out, but we'll have to see about that. Currently we are working on the next big release, so that is priority for now.

Foot

You were always such a tease

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?

Several factions accomplished very little and are yet included. KH springs to mind.

Factions are likely included based on historical importance, gameplay reasons, and unique flavor.

Casse have a small amount of historical importance, but for gameplay reasons they are important and they certainly add unique flavor due to heroic units and reliance on chariots instead of cavalry.

[bobbin]

What did the Catuvellauni accomplish?

Not much beyond making life a little more difficult for Caeser in his Gallic wars, the point is they tried. As Brave Sir Robin says many factions already in EB didn't accomplish much, the reason they're in is because the had the ambition to conquer other lands.

[lobf]

Several factions accomplished very little and are yet included. KH springs to mind.

Factions are likely included based on historical importance, gameplay reasons, and unique flavor.

Casse have a small amount of historical importance, but for gameplay reasons they are important and they certainly add unique flavor due to heroic units and reliance on chariots instead of cavalry.

Gameplay shouldn't and, in theory, isn't a consideration. By the team's admission in the past.

Not much beyond making life a little more difficult for Caeser in his Gallic wars, the point is they tried. As Brave Sir Robin says many factions already in EB didn't accomplish much, the reason they're in is because the had the ambition to conquer other lands.

By your own admission, their entire role in history was defensive, and they show up 100+ years after the start date.

I don't think there's any comparison between the Greek city-states and the B.C. tribes of England in term of cultural development, addition to the historical record, and influence in world politics.

[bobbin]

By your own admission, their entire role in history was defensive, and they show up 100+ years after the start date.

I never said their role was defensive, they were involved in wars away from their homelands helping their allies on the continent they didn't have to fight they chose to, thats a pretty agressive attitude in my eyes.

Maybe they're mentioned first by caeser but archeology no doubt attests to their presence long before that and IIRC the faction leader is mentioned in Goidelic legend (and supported by archeology) as conquering all of the south west of britain around the start date.

[lobf]

I never said their role was defensive, they were involved in wars away from their homelands helping their allies on the continent they didn't have to fight they chose to, thats a pretty agressive attitude in my eyes.

Interesting. Source?

Maybe they're mentioned first by caeser but archeology no doubt attests to their presence long before that and IIRC the faction leader is mentioned in Goidelic legend (and supported by archeology) as conquering all of the south west of britain around the start date.

Source for the Goidelic legend?

And certainly archaeology will attest to the presence of humans on the Isles. I'm contesting that they were a significant power at the time the game starts. Hell, even 100s of years later.

[ziegenpeter]

Hey lobf, it seems that many members of the .org consider it much more polite if your request for a source is a longer sentence.

[Apázlinemjó]

And certainly archaeology will attest to the presence of humans on the Isles. I'm contesting that they were a significant power at the time the game starts. Hell, even 100s of years later.

Source?

[bobbin]

Interesting. Source?

A quick look gives:
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 3.9 Where Caeser mentions Britons joining the Veneti in their fight against him.
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.20 Mentions Caeser's reason for invading Britain, ie they were providing assistance to the Gauls.

Now i know this is all long after the start date but i imagine archeology testifies to similar things a lot further back in time. I'm no archeologist so i wouldn't know what sources were used but EB has team members who are so I'm willing to trust their decision in this matter.

Source for the Goidelic legend?

You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.

[Ludens]

You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.

I think this one of those bits of EB for which the sources could not be found. A lot of the team's early Celtic material hasn't been properly referenced, so the team decided to redo most or all Celtic material for EB2.

[bobbin]

Ah ok scratch off that one then.

[oudysseos]

If ye are really that interested in lPRIA Britain, there are a couple of books you need to have a look at.

Iron Age Communities in Britain and Ireland, Barry Cunliffe. The bible.
An Imperial Possession, Mattingly. Excellent.
The Britons, Snyder. Very Good.
The Iron Age in Northern Britain, Harding
Prehistoric Britain, Darvill
Ancient Britain, Dyer
The Forts of Celtic Britain, Osprey

I have to say that the suggestion that 3rd BCE Britain is not prima facie worthy of at least one faction is totally ludicrous. Do some reading.

Even as early as 272 BCE, Graeco-Roman influence was becoming profound in Continental Celtic/Gallic societies. In Britain we have the chance to imagine a society with much less cultural adulteration. Also, the archaeological record is tremendously rich. Cissbury, Maiden Castle and Danebury are some of the largest multivalate hill forts in Europe. Hengtisbury Head was one of the busiest ports. Some of the best overall examples of Celtic craftwork, shields, helmets, swords and chariots come from Britain.

The problem of course, is that the historical record does not begin until much later, so that we do not have a narrative to rely on for our story: but does that mean that we should abandon these people to the dustbin of history? In EB we are more inclined to take up the challenge and attempt to speak for history's silent people. All it takes is a little creativity.

Re: the name. I won't tell you what we are going to do about that yet. 'Casse' is of course a guess, as we don't even have numismatic evidence for the period, but it is a very good guess nonetheless. The Cassi are one of the tribes mentioned by Caesar, who is basically our earliest textual source, and in addition 'Cassi' is an element in many other kinds of names. But there are some other possibilities. Anyone know what they might be?

[lobf]

Hey lobf, it seems that many members of the .org consider it much more polite if your request for a source is a longer sentence.

If you make a claim, be prepared to cite your evidence. I shouldn't need to charm you into having a proper discussion.

Source?

I didn't make a positive existential claim. I can't be asked to cite evidence to support that something didn't happen.

You'd have to ask someone from the team for that one too, I got it from the biography of the Casse faction leader (again I'm willing to trust them in this), I'm guessing its from one of the various Irish "Cycles" stories that cover the early history of ireland.

New here, are ye? :)

What do you mean you got it from the biography of one of the Casse leaders? You mean you heard it was from the biography of one of the Casse leaders?

A quick look gives:
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 3.9 Where Caeser mentions Britons joining the Veneti in their fight against him.
Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.20 Mentions Caeser's reason for invading Britain, ie they were providing assistance to the Gauls.

I understand where you're going with this. Yes, they provided material assistance to the Gauls. On the other hand, Poland provides (or provided) material assistance to the US in Iraq. That doesn't make them a major world power. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Now i know this is all long after the start date but i imagine archeology testifies to similar things a lot further back in time. I'm no archeologist so i wouldn't know what sources were used but EB has team members who are so I'm willing to trust their decision in this matter.

It would just be nice if someone would come out and show us whatever evidence they have.

If ye are really that interested in lPRIA Britain, there are a couple of books you need to have a look at.

Iron Age Communities in Britain and Ireland, Barry Cunliffe. The bible.
An Imperial Possession, Mattingly. Excellent.
The Britons, Snyder. Very Good.
The Iron Age in Northern Britain, Harding
Prehistoric Britain, Darvill
Ancient Britain, Dyer
The Forts of Celtic Britain, Osprey

I have to say that the suggestion that 3rd BCE Britain is not prima facie worthy of at least one faction is totally ludicrous. Do some reading.

I would love to. I've been asking for something to look at for ages. That era and that part of the world fascinates me, I look forward to reading those.

Would you mind summarizing some of the main rationales behind their inclusion for me?

Even as early as 272 BCE, Graeco-Roman influence was becoming profound in Continental Celtic/Gallic societies. In Britain we have the chance to imagine a society with much less cultural adulteration. Also, the archaeological record is tremendously rich. Cissbury, Maiden Castle and Danebury are some of the largest multivalate hill forts in Europe. Hengtisbury Head was one of the busiest ports. Some of the best overall examples of Celtic craftwork, shields, helmets, swords and chariots come from Britain.

From what era?

The problem of course, is that the historical record does not begin until much later, so that we do not have a narrative to rely on for our story: but does that mean that we should abandon these people to the dustbin of history? In EB we are more inclined to take up the challenge and attempt to speak for history's silent people. All it takes is a little creativity.

I guess I'm worried that a very conjectured interpretation of these people will make it into the final product and be taken as gospel by the general public. I'd just like to understand what you are basing your recreation off of.

Re: the name. I won't tell you what we are going to do about that yet. 'Casse' is of course a guess, as we don't even have numismatic evidence for the period, but it is a very good guess nonetheless. The Cassi are one of the tribes mentioned by Caesar, who is basically our earliest textual source, and in addition 'Cassi' is an element in many other kinds of names. But there are some other possibilities. Anyone know what they might be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cassi



I'm at work, BTW, so this is kind of a rushed reply.

[Foot]

Lobf, it's great see you back on form. We've missed you!

However, while I do enjoy your "skipping record" style of conversation, perhaps its time to move onto another subject. We have told you and we will always tell you, "We do not have full records of all evidence that was bought forward during the early period of EBI (and throughout development there have been gaps). We cannot provide you with the evidence you so desperately crave at the moment. We are researching all factions and areas of our mod over again, and collating this information in a central depository so that we can check it in the future. We may or may not release this resource at some future date. We cannot talk about what we have planned for the Casse, or the British Isles in general, as we have not reached a point where we have the development at a level necessary to preview this stuff.

Your constant and consistent (I would say a very large majority of your posts on our two forums here is on the subject of the Casse) is unnecessary at this point (if it was at any point). Your hijacking of threads so that they are solely about this subject, your dominance in them, and your rather ungentlemanly behaviour (which you admit to) is frustrating and long overdue an end.

EBII is more than just a one-horse mod, and I think you've beaten this dead horse topic enough. If the Casse come up again, and some "dodgy" evidence is brought forward by fan, feel free to link them to my post and let them know that all evidence in EBII is being researched again. Then move on and [citation needed] our other factions, as they sorely need your attention!

Foot

[lobf]

Lobf, it's great see you back on form. We've missed you!

However, while I do enjoy your "skipping record" style of conversation, perhaps its time to move onto another subject. We have told you and we will always tell you, "We do not have full records of all evidence that was bought forward during the early period of EBI (and throughout development there have been gaps). We cannot provide you with the evidence you so desperately crave at the moment. We are researching all factions and areas of our mod over again, and collating this information in a central depository so that we can check it in the future. We may or may not release this resource at some future date. We cannot talk about what we have planned for the Casse, or the British Isles in general, as we have not reached a point where we have the development at a level necessary to preview this stuff.

Your constant and consistent (I would say a very large majority of your posts on our two forums here is on the subject of the Casse) is unnecessary at this point (if it was at any point). Your hijacking of threads so that they are solely about this subject, your dominance in them, and your rather ungentlemanly behaviour (which you admit to) is frustrating and long overdue an end.

EBII is more than just a one-horse mod, and I think you've beaten this dead horse topic enough. If the Casse come up again, and some "dodgy" evidence is brought forward by fan, feel free to link them to my post and let them know that all evidence in EBII is being researched again. Then move on and [citation needed] our other factions, as they sorely need your attention!

Foot

Thanks Foot!

However, I think you've misunderstood me. I understand the old Casse stuff is either missing or non-existent. I'm not asking for that. I know that the faction is to be included in the next iteration of your wonderful mod, and I'm wondering, since we can ignore much of the older evidence, what it is you will be using to rebuild that culture?

I also know that there's so much more to EB than the European tribes. I'm just not so enamored with most of the rest of the world at that time as I am with the Europeans. Like the founders of this project, I long to see accurate, reasonable interpretations of the lives of these people. This isn't just a matter of challenging shaky assertions, but I want to know and learn about them, and I'd like to look at the same sources you do.

I know I'm a dick. Maybe it's my line of work (I work in the film business... nobody's got any patience for nonsense.) and I'm sorry that I bring some of that impatience or aggression to the forums. I just really like the barbarians, and I really like to talk about them. And I really like to argue. And I really don't like when people make assertions based on rumor or hearsay. (as happened in this very topic with the "goidelic legend")

Anyways, I'm trying to move on. Thanks for tolerating me (barely) and I look forward to seeing the new material you bring to the table in the future.