Faction List for EB2?

[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.

[Ludens]

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.

What geo-political balance? There was only one dominant power around the Mediterranean before the civil wars, and that was Rome. After the civil wars there was still only one such power, and it was still Rome. The civil wars didn't even slow Rome's expansion, unlike for example the endless dynastic conflicts within the Seleucid and Ptolemean empires.

[tarem]

i think it did had effects, although at moments those effects seamed erratic. sulla for example turned from his campaign against pontus, and marched on rome. the "punitive" action against parthia was posponed because of the conflict with the pro-republicans. not to mention that the future of egypt (a client kingdom at the time) was directly influenced by the civil war (it can be argued that after's cesar's campaign, egypt was no longer a client state, but rather allied in terms of EB). most of the effects from the civil wars, seamed to concentrate on the eastern borders. it was not untill augustus' times that the east was shaped roughly as it will be for the next 200 years or more (minus the ocasional excursions into mesopotamia).

[Ludens]

i think it did had effects, although at moments those effects seamed erratic.

Certainly the civil wars had their effect, but if anything they made Rome stronger as it forced her to deal with lingering rebellions and bad provincial government. Despite the civil war, the rebellions in Iberia and Asia were stamped out in short order. This period also saw the most spectacular expansion of the Roman empire since the conquest of Hellas.

BTW, by the time Augustus was finished with the Ptolemeans, Egypt had been turned into his private estate. It wasn't even notionally independent any more.

[tarem]

no doubt that Rome got out of the civil wars stronger then ever. even during the intermediate periods expansion was evident, not in the least thanks to the unusual concentration of brilliant statesmen the period saw. and the golden age that followed after Augustus won, no doubt shows the republic was well overdue for rehauling. however the wars themselves did temporary halt the active campaigns. i am not proposing that the republic was capable of any expansion in the present state that it was, still for any effective gameplay reasons, having to lead your armies back into the homelands to protect your interests , would de facto simulate some of the historical manoeuvring

-edit-

even more so if you get to chose which side you get to represent, with notable character and faction consequences.

[Ludens]

i am not proposing that the republic was capable of any expansion in the present state that it was, still for any effective gameplay reasons, having to lead your armies back into the homelands to protect your interests , would de facto simulate some of the historical manoeuvring

So did the civil wars of other nations, and they had far more dramatic consequences. I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion. Then there is the loyalty-rate that determines the likelyhood of rebellion: it's too crude a parameter to simulate complex politicking. It represents loyalty to the faction leader rather than factions within a nation.

[tarem]

So did the civil wars of other nations, and they had far more dramatic consequences. I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion. Then there is the loyalty-rate that determines the likelyhood of rebellion: it's too crude a parameter to simulate complex politicking. It represents loyalty to the faction leader rather than factions within a nation.

that explains a lot.
i did had in mind rebellion for the 3 major factions that heavily influenced history with their own civil wars (Rome, Seleukids and Ptolemaids), but if the loyalty is the only parameter available it might lead to counter productive effects, especially for the roman faction. and if you can't pick a side you might end up playing an unwanted side in it (usually loyalist), that would in this case mean playing as the senate against your most powerful generals. i can't vouch for others, but when i play TW, i identify myself mostly with the field generals then the home administrators, and in EB1 my preference often goes with the hired "allied" generals, as they often have more desirable traits and are faster to improve.

[Horatius Flaccus]

I am afraid it is also not possible to determine which side you take in an M2:TW rebellion.

Actually, someone managed to write a script for RTW to change factions mid-game.

Just look at this thread (6th post).

I don't know if this can be used for M2:TW though.