Faction List for EB2?

[Blxz]

Oh but we merged the east hellenic culture slot with the semitic one, or something I believe. Anyway blast now you guessed that other factions the Yuézhi as well!

Is that actually true? I really don't get the point of why culture slots are a limitation. Sure the UI is changed, and the city models look different and there are other things tied to culture, but I really don't get why its such a thing that if a faction was needed, you had all the info for them but they were of a totally different culture to the current ones that it would be a problem to just lump them in with something already there. Do people care THAT much about cosmetics that they would erase a historically significant faction?

[oudysseos]

Is that actually true? I really don't get the point of why culture slots are a limitation. Sure the UI is changed, and the city models look different and there are other things tied to culture, but I really don't get why its such a thing that if a faction was needed, you had all the info for them but they were of a totally different culture to the current ones that it would be a problem to just lump them in with something already there. Do people care THAT much about cosmetics that they would erase a historically significant faction?

Well, yes it is kinda a big deal. Family member portraits - do you want a Roman face in your Gallic family tree? Strat map models, cities, UI- they are all part of de-homogenizing the original product. And there are lots of historically significant factions, about which there is plenty of material, that already fit into the culture slots that we have- so why should we go looking outside the parameters? Hell, we could probably do 9 or 10 Celtic factions alone.

Maybe we are...

[eddy_purpus]

Well, yes it is kinda a big deal. Family member portraits - do you want a Roman face in your Gallic family tree? Strat map models, cities, UI- they are all part of de-homogenizing the original product. And there are lots of historically significant factions, about which there is plenty of material, that already fit into the culture slots that we have- so why should we go looking outside the parameters? Hell, we could probably do 9 or 10 Celtic factions alone.

Maybe we are...

You already said it!
There is at least one celtic faction !!!

[hekk]

You already said it!
There is at least one celtic faction !!!

Well I wouldn't be surprised by that, the Celtic tribes spanned across most of Europe really. I don't see how they couldn't have atleast one more Celtic faction.

I really can't wait til they reveal one though (if they do, that is). :p

[tarem]

originally i'd vote for a numidian, pergamon and britain based factions but they are already in.
so from a game-experience pov my prefferances for the other factions are rather similar to the great majority of posters from 2007 onwards (i actually read the first 9 pages before i noticed how old this discussion was )
1. boii - as said before their presence in central europe and north italy can serve a great deal in slowing german and roman expansion patterns, especially in the gaul theater.

2.a second iberian or celto-iberian faction to duplicate with more accuracy (or at least provide role playing) the political situation there. i.e. if some tribes can be used by either side of the roman-cathaginian conflict as allies, this would not automaticly include all of the iberian peninsula. and 2 factions might even present a more durable buffer against romano-cathage expansion north then 1.

3.kyrenae faction as buffer betwean ptolemaic kingdom and cathage

4.maybe devide the greek city states into 2 factions, but i fear this would not improve their survivability

5. rebel seleukids, event triggered preferably, to accelerate their demise if some theritories are lost or some faction members get killed in battle

6. rebel romans, similary triggered by events, but more connected with theritory expansion, marian reforms and character traits

i know yuezhi are not included, but i'd also prefer if at least some nasty eleutheroi nomadic invasion pops in the far eastern edges of the map to spice things up for the bactrians and possibly seleukids if they still have a hold there. in my current game with macedon, while hunting seleukids past persepolis i was surprised to see the bactrians thriving in the north indias. and this is a second time they do this out of 2 campaigns i've played this far east. they need to be challenged somehow, especially if human controlled. and since indian faction is not possible, at least a time triggered mongol-like invasion of neautrals would do the trick. scripted to be quite agresive within their historical activity zones

[bobbin]

The team have stated that there will be no rebel factions as its a waste of a faction slot(you can't play them) and it would mean an unfair focus on a few factions (all factions would have experienced rebellions ot just the seleukids or romans).

Also there already is a scripted eleutheroi invasion in EB1 to represent the Yuezhi, not that having Baktria in north india is a problem, its what they did historically

[tarem]

The team have stated that there will be no rebel factions as its a waste of a faction slot(you can't play them) and it would mean an unfair focus on a few factions (all factions would have experienced rebellions ot just the seleukids or romans).

Also there already is a scripted eleutheroi invasion in EB1 to represent the Yuezhi, not that having Baktria in north india is a problem, its what they did historically

i know that rebels would be a waste of faction slots, it;s just that the roman civil wars in the 1century bc made a big impact on the overall geo-political balance. but if they are out, they are out. i can't think of a better way to use those 2 slots though. a second britain based faction and belgae? but adding those would really cramp the gaulic sphere of influence, just like adding thrace and ilyria would do to the balcans. are there any stepe candidates (seing how bosphorans are in already)?

-edit-

the problem is not bactrians taking over india, it's them still thriving and expanding unoposed 150+ years after the campaign starting point in 2 out of 2 cases i played in the east.

[moonburn]

originally i'd vote for a numidian, pergamon and britain based factions but they are already in.
so from a game-experience pov my prefferances for the other factions are rather similar to the great majority of posters from 2007 onwards (i actually read the first 9 pages before i noticed how old this discussion was )
1. boii - as said before their presence in central europe and north italy can serve a great deal in slowing german and roman expansion patterns, especially in the gaul theater.

2.a second iberian or celto-iberian faction to duplicate with more accuracy (or at least provide role playing) the political situation there. i.e. if some tribes can be used by either side of the roman-cathaginian conflict as allies, this would not automaticly include all of the iberian peninsula. and 2 factions might even present a more durable buffer against romano-cathage expansion north then 1.

boii and arevaci will probably be in indeed

as for the 3rd one i believe that the belgae will finally show up and probably with a fort in the british isles so we can remove the casse with a more historically accurate faction

[tarem]

that would account for pergamon, bosphorus, numidia, boii, belgae and arevaci.
what are other probable candidates then? 3 or 4 slots left if 10 more are available

[oudysseos]

boii and arevaci will probably be in indeed

as for the 3rd one i believe that the belgae will finally show up and probably with a fort in the british isles so we can remove the casse with a more historically accurate faction

Hmmm. Are you saying that having the Belgae in Britain in 272 BCE is more accurate than the current Casse faction in EB1? That is an interesting position. Can you prove it?

Here's a little paraphrase from material in Cunliffe, Birchall, Mattingly et al.

In 1890, the discovery of a "Belgic" cemetary at Aylesford was linked to the Marnian peoples of the continent by the site's publisher, A.J.Evans. Evans linked the site with Caesar's comments that the coastal areas of Britain were settled by Belgic invaders from northern Gaul. The excavation of graves around Welwyn, Hertforshire by Smith in 1912 were thought to confirm these ideas. Then J.P.Bushe-Fox's excavations of the Swarling graves in 1925 established these "invaders" to after 75 BCE according to the dating of the associated grave goods.

Since the authoritative account of the history of the British and continental Belgic tribes by Hawkes and Dunning in 1930 it has been accepted that the introduction of Belgic culture into Britain is represented archaeologically exclusively by the series of Late La Tene Aylesford-Swarling type cremation burials in the south-east. Its continental origins were traced to northern Gaul, the area occupied by the historical Belgae, where a similar series of cremation burials of Late La Tene date is known. This continental series, thought to mark a change from what seemed to be the universal practice of inhumation as mode of burial to cremation, was interpreted as representative of a fusion of inhuming Galli with cremating Germani from across the Rhine. This fusion, leading to the
formation of the Belgae, who, as Caesar records, boasted of their 'Germanic' origin, was thought to have taken place in the latter half of the second century BCE. The date for the first Belgic invaders of Britain was put at about 75 BCE. However, at the 1964 Conference on the Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, the initial settlement of the Belgae in Britain was up-dated. This resulted from Allen's reappraisal of the origins of coinage in Britain. Of the waves of imported coinages, taken to reflect the pattern of Belgic migration to Britain, the two earliest were attributed to the second century BCE., while the third and main wave, Gallo-Belgic C, was dated to about 100 BCE. Some sort of Belgic activity is represented in the Lower Thames area by the coins of the second century- and perhaps also the few brooches and swords - but Belgic settlement, it was felt, should date at least from the time of the third coin wave, about I00 BCE.

The Aylesford-Swarling culture in Britain may be defined as an archaeological culture characterized by cremation-burials in flat graves and accompanied by distinctive pottery types (wheel-made [not hand-made]). Examination of all the relevant material, including the reassembly of all possible grave-groups, suggests, particularly for Kent, the primary landfall, it is agreed, of the first Belgic invaders, the formation of 'homogeneous' groups of graves, based on the similarity of over-all contents. These form a simple relative chronological series, with 'early', 'middle', and 'late' periods.

The middle period, which was in full swing when Julius Caesar invaded, is thought to have lasted from about 50 BCE to about 10 BCE (there is a lot of very detailed archaeological analysis of British and Continental pottery and bronze vessels that go into these dates). The late period is usually taken to have ended with the Roman invasion of 43 AD, although of course many of the material aspects of the culture continued.

Dating the early period is a little more difficult, and speaks directly to what kind of faction the British Isles should have in EB2.

The paucity of the material in the early group inevitably raises the question whether it may reasonably be claimed that the group, while it may be pre-Caesarian, extends as far back in time as the dating attributed at least to the main coin wave at about I00 BCE. This is indeed a pertinent question for, though coins may relate to the dominant and wealthier elements of society which are unlikely to be documented by other archaeological material such as coarse pottery, yet burial-material ought to relate to the whole of the society, and the 'early' group represents the earliest typological stage in the Aylesford-Swarling sequence. It must therefore be doubted whether, on present evidence, there are grounds for up-dating the Aylesford-Swarling culture. On the other hand, the earlier dating for Belgic settlement in Britain proposed by the coin evidence gains some support from a reconsideration of the continental material. For it can now be shown that the continental Belgic tribes are of earlier origin than has hitherto been supposed. Analysis of the parallel Late La Thne series of Aylesford-Swarling type burials on the Continent reveals that its characteristic features of cremation-burial and distinctive pottery types have origins in Middle, and even Early, La Tene. Hence the conclusion that the southern Belgic tribes were developing during the third century BCE at latest. This is, moreover, consistent with the results of Marien's work on the La Tene material of the present-day Low Countries; here, owing to the demonstrable continuity of culture in the regional groups throughout La Tene, the Belgic tribes inhabiting these northern regions in historical times can be traced back to origins in the fifth century. The 'Germanic' origin of the Belgae, when expressed in archaeological terms, is seen to be Urnfield Culture. It would seem that, if the higher dating of the coins is accepted and given the much earlier formation of the continental Belgic tribes, the Aylesford-Swarling sequence, which is more closely related to the culture of the southern Belgae and seems predominantly post-Caesarian in date, represents a later -albeit the most dominant- phase of Belgic settlement and culture in Britain. Aylesford-Swarling is now seen to extend only part way along the widened, and still widening, horizons of Belgic history.


So, Belgic settlement of Britain is pretty clearly not in existence in 272 BCE - although there may well have been contact of some kind prior to the Aylesford-Swarling culture, which, also clearly, really only came into existence between Caesar's invasion and Cladius's 100 years or so later. According to Cunliffe (Iron age Communities in Britain), "Welwyn type cremations represent a tradition of aristocratic burial deeply rooted in the formative period of the Aylesford-Swarling culture north of the Thames." It is now thought that this culture developed because of the proximity of Roman trading systems, rather than a wholesale movement of continental peoples. The culture does not appear to have a secure pre-Caesarian phase. So we see that the "Belgic Invasion" of Britain cannot be decoupled from the expanding Roman hegemony - another important point for EB, where Roman hegemony is not a foregone conclusion. It is possible to assert that absent Roman expansion, the Belgic movement into Britain might not have happened at all, or in a different fashion and to a different chronology.

Although there probably was in fact some migration of 'Belgic' peoples from Gaul to Britain in the mid-1st century BC [after Caesar], likely fleeing Roman subjugation [or that of Gallic tribes allied with Rome], the most pervasive view today seems to be that the ‘Aylesford-Swarling culture’ was not the result of a large scale population movement, or invasion, but a manifestation of increasing trade and social contacts between south-eastern British tribes and their increasingly more Romanized neighbours across the Channel. Again, a Belgae faction in Britain in 272 BCE for EB2 hardly seems to be particularly historically accurate.

But perhaps you know something I don't?