Faction speculation thread

[fightermedic]

The Achaean and Aetolian League make much more sense as candidate factions than KH. They played a major part in politics and war in Greece during the game's timeframe. The KH was actually just a temporary alliance between the Athenians and the Spartans to fight Macedon in the Chremonidian war, which they lost. These two were weak, far from any prospect of imperialism, because the very concept of a city-state had become obsolete at the time. A city state could under no circumstances rival the hellenistic kingdoms of the time, that's why leagues of cities were formed in the first place. The Achaean and Aetolian leagues along with Macedon dominated Greece in the Hellenistic period. Neither Athens nor Sparta played any significant role during this period. IN FACT Sparta was "conquered" (forced to join at swordpoint) by the Achaean league.

Massilia wasn't just another city state that was captured. It was a powerful Western European Greek empire. Most of the Greek cities in western Mediterranean like Emporion were Massilian Colonies. And they were quite a few. Massilia with it's navy played a MAJOR part in the Punic wars as an ally of Rome and was finally subdued by the Romans after Julius Caesar's death. I think it was during the war between Octavian and Marc Antony. It certainly was not just another city-state that gets captured by Gauls, as it hapens in EB1.

The argument "too many Greek factions" is used quite often. I respectfully disagree. I believe a faction like a Greek league of cities (not the KH) or Massilia would be a better choise, in terms of historical importance, than another Scythian or Arabian faction. I agree with a belgic or another celtiberian faction though. As for Syracuse and Rhodes, Massilia was way more important than any of them, and than Athens and Sparta as well.

If the game's timeframe was the classic period Athens and Sparta would be the logical choices. In the hellinistic period though, they played no bigger part than to wait for a greater faction to Capture them, which is what happened by the way. (Athens was finally captured by Sulla)

very interesting opinion
well i cant say anything regarding the leages but completely agree with the massilia part

[Brapbrapbap]

The Achaean and Aetolian League make much more sense as candidate factions than KH. They played a major part in politics and war in Greece during the game's timeframe. The KH was actually just a temporary alliance between the Athenians and the Spartans to fight Macedon in the Chremonidian war, which they lost. These two were weak, far from any prospect of imperialism, because the very concept of a city-state had become obsolete at the time. A city state could under no circumstances rival the hellenistic kingdoms of the time, that's why leagues of cities were formed in the first place. The Achaean and Aetolian leagues along with Macedon dominated Greece in the Hellenistic period. Neither Athens nor Sparta played any significant role during this period. IN FACT Sparta was "conquered" (forced to join at swordpoint) by the Achaean league.

Massilia wasn't just another city state that was captured. It was a powerful Western European Greek empire. Most of the Greek cities in western Mediterranean like Emporion were Massilian Colonies. And they were quite a few. Massilia with it's navy played a MAJOR part in the Punic wars as an ally of Rome and was finally subdued by the Romans after Julius Caesar's death. I think it was during the war between Octavian and Marc Antony. It certainly was not just another city-state that gets captured by Gauls, as it hapens in EB1.

The argument "too many Greek factions" is used quite often. I respectfully disagree. I believe a faction like a Greek league of cities (not the KH) or Massilia would be a better choise, in terms of historical importance, than another Scythian or Arabian faction. I agree with a belgic or another celtiberian faction though. As for Syracuse and Rhodes, Massilia was way more important than any of them, and than Athens and Sparta as well.

If the game's timeframe was the classic period Athens and Sparta would be the logical choices. In the hellinistic period though, they played no bigger part than to wait for a greater faction to Capture them, which is what happened by the way. (Athens was finally captured by Sulla)

Oh what a surprise, you're Greek! And you're saying we need more Greeks! Who would've thought it!

Lets add more five Greek Nations and seven Romanian ones while we're at it.

[fightermedic]

this Sir has been a rather poor comment
you can disagree with vpapako as you like but in no way his statment gives any reason to answer it with such an unpolite respond
in my humble opinion at least

[Mediolanicus]

Oh what a surprise, you're Greek! And you're saying we need more Greeks! Who would've thought it!

Lets add more five Greek Nations and seven Romanian ones while we're at it.

this Sir has been a rather poor comment
you can disagree with vpapako as you like but in no way his statment gives any reason to answer it with such an unpolite respond
in my humble opinion at least

Agreed with fightermedic. Brapbrapbap your comment is on the same level as someone asking 5 Greek and 7 Romanian factions without any motivation.

vpapako added a good motivation, although I don't agree with him completely. All those leagues are pretty weak as a faction. And the EB team once posted a very good reason why the Aetolians were out.

Massilia was an important coastal city, but AFAIK not the capital of an empire... Those other cities may have begun as colonies, but by 270BC they weren't governed by Massilia.

"Too many Greeks" was never an argument. Two confirmed new factions are Hellenistic.

[B_Ray]

We've certainly considered adding the Aitolians as a faction. We could do them up a nice unit roster, it would work fairly well. Except that they wouldn't even touch a rebel region. They would be entirely sandwiched between other factions. So we're doing something slightly different instead, only I can't tell you yet what we're doing...

Hmm, I wouldn't have expected the Aetolian units to be any different from their neighbors'. Interesting. The lack of rebel regions bothers me about their position, too. Having no where to expand without immediately going to war with a more powerful neighbor doesn't seem like something that would work well for the AI, though it might be fun for players.

I have absolutely no guess as to what you're hinting at being done involving the area, but now I'm dying to know. Oh, I can't wait for another preview!

[brymht]

Hmm. I wouldn't be opposed to another greek faction if the map is large enough to include many different Greek Cities with some accuracy; and not to appear to incredibly crowded.

[vpapako]

@ Brapbrapbap: Either I'm Greek, or I did Classical studies. I won't tell you which.
@ fightermedic: Thank you for defending the basic principles of reasonable arguing and conversation.

I didn't suggest we add more greek factions. I suggested:
a) If A GREEK FACTION IS GOING TO BE ADDED ANYWAY I am more in favor of Massilia than Syracuse or Rhodes for the reasons I mentioned before. The same doesn't apply to the Attalid kingdom in Asia minor, which is a very significant successor state, and IMHO must be included.

b) Another faction in Grece would indeed make it somewhat crowded in there. I simply oppose the concept of KH, as it doesn't make much sense IN MY PERSONAL OPINION. No disrespect towards the team implied.
Mediolanicus made a point that the Ach. and Aet. Leagues were not powerful empires which would really add to the game. I agree, but if our goal is to find empires as significant as Carthage or the Successor States to include, we wouldn't have many choises, with the exception of the Attalids.

The 2 leagues mentioned played a very important part in Greek affairs and warfare, my top argument being: one of them annexed Sparta. They also helped to inroduce Rome in Greek affairs.

I wanted to mention 2 more things, which might not be completely relevant to this thread's point of discussion, but what the heck?

First the hoplites. The KH uses mainly hoplites as army material, very similar to classical hoplite phalanxes. That is not historically accurate. The Athenians used iphicratean phalanxes long before 272 BC (Iphicrates was an athenian general). Philip's and Alexander's Macedonian Phalanxes were based on the Iphicratean Phalanx. Also, the Spartans had introduced Spartan Citizen Macedonian Phalanx-like Units, as part of the reform conducted by King Kleomenes.

Second the Greek cities of western mediterranean. In EB1 and most other mods they are often overrun by barbarian factions. Barbarians didn't have the infostructure to breach grek walls in 272 BC. In fact, when Hannibal Barca was preparing his campaign, most spanish settlements were wooden cities, not stone cities, with the exception of Seguntum, which (if I am not mistaken) was founded as a greek colony.

Sory for the big text, just food for thought

By the way could someone tell me the argument the team used against using the Aetolians? I must have missed it.

[sinner]

The Athenians used iphicratean phalanxes long before 272 BC (Iphicrates was an athenian general). Philip's and Alexander's Macedonian Phalanxes were based on the Iphicratean Phalanx.

wasn't iphicrates the athenian general at marathon? and I was under the impression that philip based his macedonian phalanx from the corinthians.

[Genava]

"Second the Greek cities of western mediterranean. In EB1 and most other mods they are often overrun by barbarian factions. Barbarians didn't have the infostructure to breach grek walls in 272 BC. In fact, when Hannibal Barca was preparing his campaign, most spanish settlements were wooden cities, not stone cities, with the exception of Seguntum, which (if I am not mistaken) was founded as a greek colony."
Massalia will be different in eb2. But I think Massalia isn't good because of the conquest focused of the game.

[vpapako]

wasn't iphicrates the athenian general at marathon? and I was under the impression that philip based his macedonian phalanx from the corinthians.

The athenian general at Marathon Was Miltiades. And no, it wasn't based on the Corinthians. It was based on the reforms of Iphikrates the Athenian and Epameinondas the Theban. Look up Iphikratean Phalanx. Image below:



The Macedonian Sarissa is actually quite longer than this one. Also a Macedonian phalanx's regiment was larger than an Iphikratean's and they used mainly Linothorax and bronze chest armor, not padded armor like this guy. The very concept of the Iphikratean Phalanx was: Longer spears, less armor than hoplite. Philip developed this military unit into what we know of as a Macedonian Sarissa Phalanx.

[fightermedic]

i just learned something..
+ rep man

[sinner]

yes, thanks for clearing that out.

[Cassibellane]

Second the Greek cities of western mediterranean. In EB1 and most other mods they are often overrun by barbarian factions. Barbarians didn't have the infostructure to breach grek walls in 272 BC. In fact, when Hannibal Barca was preparing his campaign, most spanish settlements were wooden cities, not stone cities, with the exception of Seguntum, which (if I am not mistaken) was founded as a greek colony.

Yes, this is something of a pain, and a double-edged pain as well. Not only, as you say, do the Barbarian factions overrun the various Greek polities, but if you play as a Barbarian faction you are forced into a very un-Barbarian mindset and warfare.

If M2TW is anything like RTW though, then it seems that the siege equipment is hard-coded. If only there was a way of limiting the use of siege towers...

[bobbin]

We have repeatedly stated that Massalia will not be a faction and that it was one of the first to be ruled out for EBII.

Massalia never held more territory than it's province in EB and never showed any ambition to expand during the time frame. It most certainly wasn't an empire and held no power over any of the colonies it had founded.

It wasn't particularly strong, being well past it's heyday, the whole reason for Rome's entry into southern Gaul was to protect Massalia from the Gallic tribes that threatened it. It's navy wasn't particularly large either and at the time of their conquest by Caesar they could muster only 17 warships.

First the hoplites. The KH uses mainly hoplites as army material, very similar to classical hoplite phalanxes. That is not historically accurate. The Athenians used iphicratean phalanxes long before 272 BC (Iphicrates was an athenian general). Philip's and Alexander's Macedonian Phalanxes were based on the Iphicratean Phalanx. Also, the Spartans had introduced Spartan Citizen Macedonian Phalanx-like Units, as part of the reform conducted by King Kleomenes.

Yes and in EB they could recruit Iphikratean Hoplites. They could also gain access to a Makedonian phalanx type unit (which could be recruited in Sparta) later in the game.

Second the Greek cities of western mediterranean. In EB1 and most other mods they are often overrun by barbarian factions. Barbarians didn't have the infostructure to breach grek walls in 272 BC.

Seriously? you think the "barbarians" couldn't organise themselves enough to make a few ladders and battering rams?

[athanaric]

Seriously? you think the "barbarians" couldn't organise themselves enough to make a few ladders and battering rams?

Nah. Barbarians don't need rams. Real men use their teeth...

[vpapako]

Seriously? you think the "barbarians" couldn't organise themselves enough to make a few ladders and battering rams?

Just for the sake of arguing
The barbarians in Spain didn't even build stone walls at that time. They built everything out fo wood. They traditionally did organise themselves to mount big expansion/migration campaigns with their biggest edge being that practically every male was a warrior. But it was not that simple to breach stonewall defences. It wasnt that simple to build siege towers. they would need siege engineers and they usually didn't employ such, at least not that early AFAIK. I could be mistaken.

Your arguments about Massilia are quite reasonable, quite accurate and I agree. But the same reasons should exclude the KH in my personal opinion. It was an alliance that was forged to avoid annexation by greater factions and it failed. Athens in particular wasn't very different than massilia at the time. It was a navy-strong force with limited land forces and small potential for conquest. And Sparta was simply decaying. They mainly used mercenaries at that point.

[bobbin]

Just for the sake of arguing
The barbarians in Spain didn't even build stone walls at that time. They built everything out fo wood. They traditionally did organise themselves to mount big expansion/migration campaigns with their biggest edge being that practically every male was a warrior. But it was not that simple to breach stonewall defences. It wasnt that simple to build siege towers. they would need siege engineers and they usually didn't employ such, at least not that early AFAIK. I could be mistaken.

Wow, that is completely wrong, stone was a common material for the construction of buildings and fotifications, good examples being the numerous castros found across the region and the famous Arevaci capital Numatia.
You don't need seige towers to breach a stone wall, it was very common across the ancient world to use ladders to climb onto them or battering rams to break the doors (yes "civilised" people like the Greeks done this too).

Your arguments about Massilia are quite reasonable, quite accurate and I agree. But the same reasons should exclude the KH in my personal opinion. It was an alliance that was forged to avoid annexation by greater factions and it failed. Athens in particular wasn't very different than massilia at the time. It was a navy-strong force with limited land forces and small potential for conquest. And Sparta was simply decaying. They mainly used mercenaries at that point.

I don't know enough about the decisions taken to include the KH to give you an answer on that although I will say that comparing Athens to Massalia is a bit odd, the former was AFAIK much larger and richer for starters. It has also been stated before that on their own neither of the three city states that make up the KH would be faction material.

[Cassibellane]

Seriously? you think the "barbarians" couldn't organise themselves enough to make a few ladders and battering rams?

A few ladders and battering rams, yes. But a ladder is not a siege engine. Caesar gives a description of the 'siege' tactics of the Gauls. Essentially they rely upon undermining the walls and battering rams, for which purpose the assailants would use their shields in a 'testudo' formation. Murus Gallicus was developed by the Gauls to counter these forms of attack. Siege warfare was not, generally, a part of Gallic/Barbarian warfare at this time.

[Cassibellane]

I don't know enough about the decisions taken to include the KH to give you an answer on that although I will say that comparing Athens to Massalia is a bit odd, the former was AFAIK much larger and richer for starters. It has also been stated before that on their own neither of the three city states that make up the KH would be faction material.

While I'm not here to expound on the virtues of a Massilian faction, the reasons given for not including them seem to describe Sparta, Athens and Rhodes. Just putting three similarly spent forces into one faction doesn't counter the fact that they were spent forces by this time. Surely a better argument could be made for the Achaean or Aitolian leagues - and if they are out because of timeframe....., well how come Baktria and Pahlava are in?

Anyway, this is all by the by. I'm just looking forward to EBII, and whatever factions are in will be in - 'm just dying to know what they are

As for those who are so vehement about wanting faction a, b or c in..... do the homework and make your own mod replacing whichever faction you feel can be removed with the faction you want in its place. Simples.

[vpapako]

Wow, that is completely wrong, stone was a common material for the construction of buildings and fotifications, good examples being the numerous castros found across the region and the famous Arevaci capital Numatia.
You don't need seige towers to breach a stone wall, it was very common across the ancient world to use ladders to climb onto them or battering rams to break the doors (yes "civilised" people like the Greeks done this too).

First of all, I am not trying to convince you to change your faction list, nor to lecture you on anything. Just discussing. I mention that because it seems to me your replies are somewhat, I don't know, passionately arguing or sth. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Second, about the passage I'm quoting, are you sure all these applied in 272 BC?