Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
Kudos to Brennus for researching an alternative Briton faction, rather than throwing out the Caledonians again.

I am not convinced, though. "Stopping the expansions of another faction" is a poor reason for spending a faction slot. There's other ways of doing that. Also, if they start out at war, you are most likely merely delaying the problem until one of them beats the other. Lastly, faction expansion is probably going to be different in EB2 because the A.I. is programmed differently.
Thank you for the kudus. I suggested the Atrebates not to prevent the Casse from expanding but to do the very opposite, to prompt them to expand. I have noticed in my non-Casse games that the neutrality that exists between the Casse and Eleutheroi at the start of the game oftens prevents the AI Casse from expanding.

I agree with what people have been saying about the 170 year gap or so that exists between the start of the game and the currently accepted date for the Ayelsfor-Swarling culture beginning. What about the Arras culture of the Parisi in Yorkshire? Does anyone know how early that culture is? Again that would be relatively easy to research as the Parisi of Gaul would have had a culture very similar to the Averni and Aedui already present. The only problem is that, unlike the Casse, the Parisi were not major political players in Iron Age Briton (at least according to the few hisotrical records we have).

I sympathise with people who think another British faction is a waste of time, I am just Celt mad.

I also agree with people who argue against a Goidelic faction, although personally I would love to see a Goidelic faction, the archaeological evidence for this period in Ireland is very limited and the historical records (mostly derived from legends and the Annals of Ulster) would not provide accurate information.