EBII : An Interview With

[Red_Devil]

Hi everyone!

Here's an interview from one of our team members V.T.Marvin, who, with some questions given to him by fans, gave some info on his area of expertise.

This was an idea from Brennus, I'm just copy pasting this from the org, so all credits should go to him please.

Enjoy!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Greetings Europa Barbarorum II fans! Here is the first of our team member interviews.


This time we are interviewing V.T. Marvin


Thank you to all the fans who submitted questions.


And so, V.T. Marvin

EB II:What is your role in the Europa Barbarorum II team?

Actually working in the EB Team is a lot like playing Skyrim. Do you remember how Todd Howard advertised the Skyrim levelling system as "be whoever you wanna be, do whatever you wanna do and do not be afraid to respec in the middle of the game"? Actually it does fit exactly to what being on the Team is all about.


More specifically, I joined with the idea to add a few trait-related mechanics that I fancied, but instead it so happened that what I am doing most often now is coding buildings. Currently I am responsible for restructuring and cleaning of the EDB file and adding new buildings to support mechanisms devised by our historians. Connected to that are minor contributions to campaign scripting and transferring building descriptions from forum posts so that they appear in the game. You might be surprised that something as basic as building trees is still in development, but there are two reasons for that. First, ideas are developing over time and new concepts of how to make the game more historically accurate and fun are emerging all the time and, second, EB2 will have A LOT of buildings. I will not go into details here, but let me tell you, that I am keeping track of how many complexes we have already, because there is a hard-coded limit to them and that number is 128...

EB II:What is the most challenging aspect of your work?

Finding the bugs I have introduced in good faith, unknowingly running into one hard-code limit or another I had no idea they even are such. I am learning on the job, my modding experience before joining EB Team was very limited indeed.

EB II: Why did you decide to help the EBII project?

For a short period of time I happened to have somewhat more free time than I was used to. Playing Skyrim was getting old, even EB1 was no longer so attractive after so many years spent on it, I am not interested in any other mod, and EB2 was still nowhere to be seen. So I applied to check from inside how are the guys doing and help them a little to speed things up. And here I am.

EB II:What faction(s) are you looking forward to playing the most upon release?

Pahlava - I love them since I first read the unsurpassable AAR "The Waste Land" by Arsacerse/Obelics. But Bosporans and the Boii are very high on my list as well. In fact, if time would permit I would love to play them all, because the Team is working hard to make each faction unique and present different opportunities as well as challenges than other factions. So if all goes well EB2 should have pretty high re-playability.

EB II: Are there any surprises in your work we have not yet been told about?

Oh, yeah! A great many of these!!! But I am not going to tell you either. :lipsrsealed2:

EB II: Would you like to come back to my place for bouncy bouncy?

I am pleased and flattered by by the devotion to the EB Team and its members implied in this invitation. But, you see, I prefer female partners for bouncy bouncy and the only two girls on The Org (AFAIK) are (1.) my wife and (2.) the wife of Pezhetairoi. I guess you are neither of these, so the answer is "no". Sorry.

EB II: Are there any skills you are currently looking for that would help the team?

Skinning and modelling as always. Creating new units is incredibly time-consuming process about which I have no clue and luckily for everybody I am not involved with at all. Having wider variety of units provide for more interesting game-play, but require a lot of work. So I guess our unit-makers could use some help.


Custom settlements are also very much a work in progress, while being important for satisfying gameplay, so yes that would be welcome too.


But most importantly, the only truly required skill is the one how to make yourself a few hours a week of time to dedicate to the EB. Because there is so much to do that requires no previous computer skill or specialized knowledge at all that I am sure there is a niche for anybody.


There are good tutorials at The Org and over on TWC and anyone can become a modder with some patience and common-sense.


Also our historians are becoming scarce so we would welcome reinforcements here as well. A lot of buildings for a lot factions means a lot of descriptions to write and there are many very knowledgeable people in the community who could help us with them. Historians do not have any modding skills at all, but if they have it is of course big advantage. Currently we could use somebody knowing about Lusotonnan and Arevaci, preferably a Spanish speaker, Numidia, Nabatu , Saba and Sauromatae.

Rex Somnorum: Several other mods include a re-emergent faction function -that is, formerly "dead" factions crop up later due to poor governance or just bad luck. Historically, the notion makes sense. Few subjugated nations balked at the opportunity to rise up and reassert their independence. Will similar scripting feature in EBII? And, if so, what conditions will provoke such a revolution?

No. This issue has been raised several times and while attractive at the first glance it has always been refused. The reason is that for each such "rebel" faction - that has to be coded as unplayable faction in the engine - we would need to sacrifice a playable one. So the consensus is that the gameplay is better served overall by having a lot of factions - all playable - present on the campaign map all the time. It would be great if the engine worked similar to EU3 where any province can essentially become a state of its own, but it is not the case. So no re-emergent faction for EB2.

cahtush:Will you be able to play the hotseat mode that is built into Med 2 (since kingdoms) in EB 2 with the script and all?

We do not have this capability yet and we are not working on it. The priority is to get the game finished as a single player campaign. Once that is done and most of the balancing and tweaking done only then we will consider implementing this feature, which is of course very attractive. Taking the history of EB1 as a model, we are currently working on getting the 0.74 version (opn-beta) released. The first release will still contain a lot of placeholders, some features trimmed or not working and probably the campaign balance would be far from optimal. Only after this release and massive feedback from the player community we can identify the problems and start to fix them. And only after that we can add more features on already solid mod. So hopefully EB2v1.1 will have hotseat. At least I wish it has!

Velho: Regarding the reforms in the EB2, I would like to ask are you going to make the reform conditions more complex or more streamlined.

Both!


Thanks to more advanced scripting possibilities in M2TW we can make the conditions more complex, while making it much less hassle for the player. Also it depends on each faction concerned. Some, like Saka Rauka, may change rather dramatically from nomads of Fergahna to hellenized rulers of India, while others, like the big Hellenistic kingdoms may go through the game period without any profound change.

Cybvep: As far as scripts are concerned, is there sth which we can expect to be done much better in EB2 than in EB1 because of the engine changes etc.? Can you give some examples?

Evocata: I've heard mostly good things about the M2TW engine in terms of campaign scripting, so in comparison with RTW what's the biggest advantage?

These two questions are basically about the same thing so I am going to answer them together.


Yes, it is true that M2TW, despite its limitations, is way better than RTW as far as scripting is concerned. Perhaps the most important scripting tool for us are the "event_counters" that can tie together buildings, units, traits and scripts in a way that was impossible in EB1. An example of that may be for instance how colonization of new territory is done for some factions:
You have conquered a new province. Good for you. You want to settle your people there in order to affirm your control over it and eventually incorporate it fully into your empire. Fine. To do that you need people to settle on newly conquered land in the first place. So the script will count how many buildings that represent such population you have faction-wide and based on how many they are and how much time has passed since your last colonization attempt the "colony" building will become available, if all other conditions are met. Similarly some building and/or recruitment options may depend on particular traits of the faction leader or city governor etc.
In effect the reforms can be handled much better, in more natural and plausible way and we can spice the campaign with scripted events that present new challenges or opportunities.

Stath: Will there be scripted events for the majority of factions or just for some?

This another great use of the better scripting opportunities provided by M2TW engine compared to the RTW one and we intend to use it fully. Eventually all factions will have some, currently about a half of them has, if I am not mistaken.

Ailfertes: What particular new accomplishment are you most proud of so far?

As far as my personal contribution is concerned I rather proud of implementing a way in which every faction can have its own unique government structure and options. And also of finding and coding in a way in which some phenomena represented by buildings in the game will have appropriate running cost, upkeep, associated with them. At this stage it is difficult to test the economy of mid- to late-game, but I hope it will help to mitigate the problem of being overly rich once you cross a certain size threshold and force little more of planning and strategic choices throughout the whole campaign, because it will no longer be wise to just build everything everywhere.


Thank you for your time, V.T. Marvin, and good luck with your work.




***********


Next time round we will be interviewing Gaius Scribonius Curio our Roman historian. If you wish to ask him a question please PM me (Brennus). As previously stated, only one question per member.

______________________________________________________________________________-

Note from RD: preferably, send those PMs on the org... I know it's not very conenient, but that's where our dev forum is.

French translation

[Murfmurf]

Brilliant interview, thanks guys!

[Stath's]

I haven't understood that we can post here. Thanks for the interviews and answering our questions!!

Interviews like that are much needed

[Wulfburk]

Oh, i dont think we are supposed to post here heh, but anyway yeah great interview!

[Moros]

Oh, i dont think we are supposed to post here heh, but anyway yeah great interview!

Hmm I think you're right...

Closed. Atleast for now

[Moros]

Thank you for waiting Europa Barbarorum II fans. This time we are pleased to bring you the words of our Roman historian Gaius Scribonius Curio

EB II:What is your role in the Europa Barbarorum II team?

My main role within the EB II is, as stated by Brennus, the Faction Historian for the Romani. Given, however, that prior to me joining the team a veritable mountain of work had already been done on this faction I have been turning my attention to other areas. Particularly, I have taken responsibility for the Bosporan Kingdom, and have, in a clinch, had some involvement in the development of the Numidian faction.

EB II:What is the most challenging aspect of your work?

The most challenging aspect of my work so far has been researching in areas for which both my prior knowledge is severely lacking and the amount of scholarly literature is negligible and in a foreign language. This was particularly the case with my attempts to look into ancient North African religious practices. Works in English are few and far between and usually uninspiring. Those in German and French are much better, and thankfully my university had access to some, but the field is plagued by inconsistencies and disagreement, which I felt ill-qualified to comment on. This is one reason why the team is actively seeking a historian with reasonable knowledge on Ancient North Africa in general and Ancient Numidia in particular.

Aside from that, coming up with detailed ideas for how to make the mod even more realistic and historically accurate, only to be told, ‘that is not possible’ by coders and the like. Though this has not, thankfully, happened to me often…

EB II:What is it about the Romans that intrigues you so much?

A standard question, but one that is difficult to answer.

I have always, as long as I can remember, had an interest in the Roman History and Classical mythology. This may, partially, be the product of growing up in Chester, ancient Deva, and thus being surrounded by archaeological relics from the period in my formative years. That doesn’t really explain it, however, and whence my interest stems is likely to remain unknown.

The question is what is intriguing about the Romani. Again, unfortunately I do not have an easy answer. There is something enticing in mechanisms that allowed such a fractious elite to conquer most of the known world, hence my research focus on the political and institutional history of the Late Republic. In the end, as unsatisfying as it may be, I genuinely do not know…

EB II:Why did you decide to help the EBII project?

In 2011 approaching my final semester of undergraduate study, knowing that I would have a reduced workload and having a strong interest in the project I got in contact with the team. My motivation was primarily to assist the team in getting the mod finished in as short a time-frame as possible, and I felt that my research skills would both benefit the team and be improved by shifting outside the narrow confines of Late Republican and Triumviral socio-political history.

I do not feel that I have expressed this well so, in summary: I felt like I would be a benefit to the team; I had a sudden increase in the amount of free time I had; I wanted a first release to be forthcoming as soon as possible.

EB II:What faction(s) are you looking forward to playing the most upon release?

The Romani obviously, also the Bosporan Kingdom. Otherwise the Parthians and Baktria – I can be a little taken in by the Late Republican/Early Imperial rhetoric on the allure of the East.

EB II:Are there any surprises in your work we have not yet been told about?

There definitely will be some surprises: since most have not been confirmed or fully integrated I cannot be too specific at this stage. While I am aware that this probably isn’t new, I can confirm that it will be much harder for the Romani player to retain control of Italia – due largely to the plethora of different grades of citizenship.

Similarly I can confirm that the Bosporan Kingdom will have a dual nature – two separate lines of administrative development dependent on the presence or absence of nomadic lifestyles. More than any other faction it will be equipped to dominate both steppe and settled regions.

EB II:Can you give us any ideas about how the Bosporan Greeks will differ from other Hellenic factions?

The Bosporan Kingdom is an intriguing prospect. Historically, it began as a league of small poleis, but the dominance of Pantikapaion’s ruling dynasty, first the Archaeanaktids, then the Spartokids, resulted in the growth of a proto-Hellenistic kingdom. Indeed, in some ways it can be considered a fore-runner to the kingdoms of the Diadokhoi. Due to its limited geographic extent, however, the Bosporan Kingdom never developed as complex a politico-administrative system, instead relying almost exclusively on familial and marital ties to produce its leaders. As such, it will, initially, be more difficult for the Basileus to assert his authority, than for other Hellenistic factions, though eventually, the faction will evolve into a fully operational Hellenistic state.

Most fundamentally, the Bosporan Kingdom differs from other factions in its liminal status. The northern littoral of the Black Sea was a place of interaction between steppe and Hellenic cultures. Military, political and cultural developments in the Bosporan Kingdom were tied to its location. Due to this, the Bosporan faction has both a greater steppe influence on its building tree and unit roster, but, more importantly, has a specific line of ‘government’ options for steppe provinces, greatly increasing its chances, compared to other settled factions, of controlling ‘nomadic’ regions.

EB II:What will be the diplomatic starting positions for the Romani and Bosporan Greeks in EB II?

On the diplomatic front the Romani starting position remains unchanged from EB I. With the Bosporan Kingdom, however, there was a dilemma: there is very little evidence which could enlighten us as to the exact state of affairs in 272 BCE. While we know that the Spartokids cultivated a strong relationship with Athens in the 4th Century, and received an embassy from the Ptolemaic Kingdom in ~254 BCE, nothing is certain. With regard to relationships with their nomadic neighbours, it is nearly impossible to determine a satisfactory timeline as to the periods of conflict and peace.

Arguments ex silentio are never particularly strong, but in this case we have little choice. Given the absence of explicit evidence stating that the relationship with Athens had broken down, the Bosporan Kingdom will be allied with the Koinon Hellenon at the start date. Going on, with no source claiming that there was conflict on a large scale between the Bosporans and nomadic tribes during the reign of Paerisades II (284-245 BCE), it has been decided that the Bosporan Kingdom will not be at war with the Sauromatae. Finally, since the first contact we know of between the Ptolemies and the Spartokids is in 254 BCE, there will not be any diplomatic relationship in place in 272. So in summary, the Romani are unchanged, while the Bosporan Kingdom will be allied with the Koinon Hellenon.

EB II:What faction(s) are you looking forward to playing the most upon release?

Given my limited understanding of how AI systems operate I cannot be definitive, but in my experience with the MII:TW engine both naval invasions and diplomacy are much improved from RTW. As such should Rome find itself at war with Kart-Hadast in EB II I think it likely that a full-blown naval war will result, and that control of the sea will define its result.

EB II:Do you ever have trouble with the Celtic historians?

Generally not – though they tend to ask odd questions.

EB II:Do you have any hopes or fears for the project?

I hope that the mod will fulfil all the expectations of its loyal fans, having been released in a timely fashion.

I fear that it may fail to meet my own, and the team’s standards and fail to meet the expectations of our loyal fans…

Velho: That How Roman Reforms Are implented, Like what is needed to them and how you will see it when playing.

Velho – firstly, though I fear my answer will disappoint you, I cannot confirm the exact requirements and effects of the reforms at this stage, though I will try and give you some information and a small justification.

As mentioned above, though I am nominally in charge of the Romani, my focus over the last six to eight months has been elsewhere, either on the Bosporan Kingdom or on more general matters. The reason for this is that, in pushing for a first release, focus has to shift away from those factions which have had much work put into them towards those which have had very little work done. Before I joined the team in any capacity there were a number of historians who have done an admirable job in researching, writing on and coding for the Romani, though sadly most are no longer able to contribute on a full-time basis. As such my own input into the faction is, at this stage, limited – before a first release I will be combing over everything in order to test current ideas against my own, utilising our coders’ knowledge to push the boundaries as much as possible.

Having said this: in terms of requirements I believe EB II’s Romani reforms will be broadly similar in scope to those of EB I. That is to say that the Polybian reforms will be temporally limited and dependent upon territory gained, though possibly also battles fought against various opponents. Again, Marian reforms will be restricted by time to later in the game, and will require a character with particular traits as a trigger. Given the presence of multiple citizenship levels, my own plans are ambitious – encompassing a period of change rather than an instant ‘reform’ – but, as everyone is aware, ambitious plans are always limited by the engine. Finally, the Augustan reforms will have long-term requirements and traits.

Regarding how they will affect gameplay, it is obvious that they will allow reformed units to be recruited, though at this stage a first release will, unfortunately, only include Camillan units. I’m sure your focus is largely on what changes fall outside of this. Again, these things are not finalised, but, with various grades of citizenship the reforms will impact upon the attitude of subjects to Rome and to their own governance, as well as affecting what types of administration are available. It is also likely that they will affect what policies can be implemented (in the form of buildings), for example whether the player will be allowed to effect land reform packages.

cahtush: What kind of scripted events can we expect to see for the romani?

The same response applies as above – things are work in progress and subject to change. I must also state that I am not a fan of prescriptive history: the idea behind EB II is that the player has the liberty to change history and go one’s own way. There will be no ‘scripted’ Hannibalic invasion of Italy for instance. That said, certain trends are obvious in the development of the Roman polity and can be seen as significant, though not inevitable, changes. As such, though events may not occur in every game, there will a number of events which may occur.

Brennus has already revealed the ‘Arvernian revolt’ event which will have, hopefully, a significant impact on any unwary Romani player. In a similar way I hope to simulate a Social War, should the satisfaction of the socii drop below a certain level.

Evocata: What (If any) significant new or different historical sources/elements have been taken into account in comparison to EB1?

An excellent question, Evocata – I can only really answer with regard to the Romani, as the Bosporan Kingdom was not included in EB I. As far as I am aware there has not been any significant change in the methods used to research the Romani between EB I and II. The written sources are, of course, relatively static and the team was very thorough at the first time of asking. Given my own research into the institutional and political history of the Republic there will likely be some shift in emphasis. The broader scope offered by the MII:TW engine also plays a role here. So, unlike in EB I, maintaining order in Italy will be much harder, especially as the game develops. Similarly, internal disorder brought about by political and social conflict will be much more likely to strike those regions granted some sort of citizenship and hence a stake in the development of the Republic.

Stath's: Are you pleased with the amount and quality of character traits that the team created for the Roman generals and politicians? Are there going to be surprises in this domain?

Once again, exactitudes are not possible to this stage, but it is likely that there will be multiple surprises. I am highly motivated to provide as great an insight into the world of the Roman political class as possible and traits are the most obvious way of doing this. The models used to portray offices, triumphs and governorships in EB I will be retained and hopefully improved. Similarly, I would hope that a much wider range of traits reflecting political and philosophical views would be included within realistic bounds. So yes, I am satisfied with the progress in this area, but with regard to traits and ancillaries, more yields a more immersive experience, and so is usually better…

*****************************************************

We hoped you enjoyed that. Next time we will be interviewing Haithabas one of our 2D artists.

*****************************************************

French Translation

[Red_Devil]

Again, a copy paste of Brennus' work for EB2 and it's fans I'm a bit late on this one, it was posted one week ago on the org, but it's never too late right?

At long last (and once again I do apologies as it was an administrative fault on my part) here is Haithabas:

What is your role in the Europa Barbarorum II team?

I´m one of the 2D artist mostly working on the unit skins, but I can take care of other works if needed.

Why did you join the team?

I was a big fan of the Total War Series from the very start and a follower of the TW modding scene for a long time.
The first mod I played for a Total War game was the "MTW XL Mod" for Medieval and many others has follow.
As was the case formany others I couldn´t wait anymore for EB2 and one day I decide to support this project.
I asked my self what can I do? I´ve only some basic knowledge of history, i´m not a native English speaker and have no clue when it comes to scripting and modding.
The only option remaining was art. I've tried many in the past to learn more about drawing and painting in the traditional way for myself, but i always give up after a few sketches.
In October 2011 I had a long vacation and I start to work on a 2D picture of an Armenian Cataphract which I wanted to use for my EB2 application.
Things started getting strange...once I started I couldn´t stop. I worked more than a week, 8-12 hours every day! I was obsessed for the first time of my life, like a freak. My girlfriend start to get worried.
I watched tutorials, tried many different techniques, studied other artists works, read books ect. In the end it was a creepy picture, but i was very proud of it and since then I work nearly every day and train my skills. Im pretty sure I´ll continue after EB2.
So I sent my first picture to some of the EB team members and offered my support... nothing happened.
A months later I tried it again and this time I got the opportunity to skin a unit and a new age of painful learning began...

What sort of tools/software do you use in your work?

Photoshop, pen tablet Wacom Intuos4 L and a 3D software.

Considering the core goal of Europa Barbarorum II is to be as historically accurate as possible, does this leave any room for artistic licence?

It´s always a personal challenge to create something unique and if you are limited by historical accuracy, you work even more on realistic looking textures, which can by even a bigger challenge. So yes there is always room for artistic licence either way.

On average how long does it take to produce a new unit?

Starting with the UVW and ending with the normal maps it usually take ~ 20-30 hours, units with complex shield motifs take much longer.

Do you feel, as a result of working with the various historians, that you have learned anything about this time period?

Absolutely! It´s very interesting to learn more about different events and history you will probably never heard of concerning the political situations, the trade goods, different dyes, construction, cattle and wild animals...
And even dead languages became alive! It´s a huge source of knowledge.

Is there a chance of a sneak peak of some of your new work?

Yes...coming soon.

Considering how many artists have worked for Europa Barbarorum II, has this resulted in any discrepancies between the artwork which has been produced?

This could not be avoided considering EBII has 196 units. Most of the 2D artists (if not all) are volunteers with no professional background, this mean it´s very hard to keep one standard. The best example are the bronze textures, everyone has a different idea of what bronze has to look like in game. At the beginning of the unit creation it was darker (brownish), now at the end of the development it is much more brighter (yellowish) this was a continuing process over the years by different artists.


But don´t worry they all look good ;-)

Can you tell us about any of the new units which will be appearing in EBII?

For the Hellenic factions we have many different Peltastai units, Peltastai don´t mean skirmishers, they are more like a kind of light troops which can be used in many situations in skirmish, holding lines and some even in assault.


"The Cretan peltastai wasn't particularly common and important until near the start of the Hellenistic period. The Cretans who accompanied Alexander to the East were equipped with both bows and javelins, light shields and swords. In later years, units of crack Cretan peltastai were popular mercenaries throughout the Hellenistic world.
Wearing light body armor, helmets, and carrying peltai of varying shapes and sizes (mainly round and oval, though rectangular shapes were not unknown), they were capable light infantry employed in urban combat, rough terrain, and difficult tactical operations.
Those that wore armor likely wore the spolas, a light, leather tube-and-yoke corselet that provided a little extra protection in combat. Most shields were like small versions of the aspis, with a rim, and faced in bronze."

What is the most challenging aspect of your work?

To make every unit look interesting and unique. Especially the common units.

Are there any units which you are most proud of?

No, not proud of, but the unit I like the most is one of my first skins; the Machimoi Phalangitai. Some time ago I improved almost all of the textures because i didn´t like the older ones anymore and it was important to me to show "my" units in best possible way.
Unfortunately I learn constantly and this make my older work look worse day by day.

Just how difficult is it to skin an elephant?

Easy. Really easy. I mean I didn´t create any skin for elephants until now, but its not hard ... I believe. Making a 3D model of an elephant is really hard work, but not skinning. No.


Are there any units which are likely to differ a lot from their Europa Barbarorum versions?


Indeed there are, for example the Gaesatae wield spears now instead of swords. The Liby-Phoenician infantry are equipped with hoploi and tunics rather than theuros and linothorax. Late period Celtic boatroas wear a lot more chainmail, they also wear iron helmets etc. The Illyrians are no longer pirates and the Sabeans will have access to a completely reconfigured unit pool... and much much more.

What faction are you looking forward to playing most?

Like many others I´d usually played Rome, Carthage, Baktria ect in EB. This time I´ll start with an Hellenic faction, probably Epeiros or Ptolemaioi. Both factions have a huge pool of regional units and both have a more interesting starting positions in EBII. Epeiros for example will have Hellenic opponents in the east/southeast, the Getai in to the northeast, Romans in the west, Carthage in Sicily and Boii in northwest. So you will fight against 5 different cultures supported by many regional units (Hellenic, Illyrian, Celtic, Italic etc) and, if you doing well two other cultures, the Lugii and Saouromatae, await you!

Are there any positions/roles which the team are in need of people to fill?

Yes, of course! We are always looking for talented and motivated people.
Historians (they don´t need any modding skills!)
2D & 3D Artists!
As always, we really need scripters/coders However we can only accept veterans or extremely motivated people with a lot time free time (they will need it!) and a willingness to learn.
In addition we could use some people with knowledge of campaign and battle AI.

Approximately how many variations of soldiers' faces and armour we would see within a unit?

We usually have 4 faces, 3-5 torsos, 3-5 helmets, 4 shields, 2-3 swords and sheaths and 2-3 Legs and other parts per unit.
From what I know the Ethiopian Spearman will have 20736 different combinations (thanks JMRC!) the Scutari (with 6 torsos!) and some other decorative items will have even more.
Just imagen how many different EB I units we could create ...

How did you handle historical accuracy regarding unit variation?

Good question! I give you an example of what can happen: a few weeks ago I worked on the Peltastai Logades in 3 different versions (Bosporian, Pergamon, Pontus and mixed version for the rebels). Paullus our main historian and Hellenic factions expert created a concept thread with different shield motifs.
One of the motifs was a Hellenic gorgon, the problem was we had the same gorgon motif for two factions, my intention was to make them all look unique and Paullus was pretty busy in RL so I decided to start a research on my own initiative.
So I found a nice stone relief showning a wild gorgon, to this I added fangs and a tongue, because all gorgons have fangs. After several hours of work I was satisfied with the results and I show my work to the team.


Paullus then responded:


"Can I request some modifications to the gorgoneion? The hair, which should be strawberry blonde or sandy brown, should generally be curly hair close to the face, and there should be little snakes coming out at several places, two on each side, 1-2 on top.
In the Hellenistic era, and you can see this on the images I posted, the gorgoneion develops hollowed eyes with arched brows, and the tongue and teeth are replaced by lightly pursed lips."
The stone relief of the gorgon I found was a roman adaptation dated to after the EBII timeframe. So my work was mostly useless for us, but we found a way to make it accurate and unique at once :-)

Is there a chance of a sneak peak of some of your new work?

Attachment 9313
One of our new Illyrian peltasts (WIP)


Just one thing, it's important to understand that the unit you see on this picture it´s not only my work. Many people worked on it before and some will work on it after I´m done with the skins! All starting with the concept made by one of the historians, next the modellers begin to their work, we often use parts made by multiple 3D artists.
Skinning, again some textures are made by other 2D artists (for example many times Gustave has offered to share his work with me). Animations! And finally coding.




Next time we will be interviewing Brennus (me) the EBII Celtic historian.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

French translation

[Moros]

Greetings Europa Barbarorum II fans! Today we are proud to present an interview with Brennus. Enjoy! (original time of posting: 06-20-13, 10:39)

What is your role in the EBII team?

I am responsible for researching and advising on the Celtic and Celtiberian factions; the Aedui, Arverni, Boii, Arevaci and Pritanoi. I also act as an advisor on zoological matters.

At present, I also have two fantastic auxiliary researchers, Ulises and Asturian, helping me to work on the Celtiberians as I cannot read Spanish (yet). So I would like to say a big thank you to them for their help.

So you research barbarians?

No. I am not a fan of the term “barbarian”. In vanilla Rome Total War a great swathe of temperate Europe and most of Iberia was classed as “barbarian”. The unit rosters from these regions were mostly uniform, the descriptions of buildings and depictions of officers were all the same. “Barbarian” does not do credit to the wonderful, eclectic and fascinating melting pot of varied cultures which existed in this region of the world. I cannot say much about some of the other cultures in this region but, suffice to say, the Celts were far from simple, shirtless, smelly barbarians. We are talking about a people who varied greatly across the region their inhabited. A people who adopted the Greek alphabet in central Gaul and Bohemia, yet employed the Latin alphabet in Britain, whilst the Celtiberians developed their own script entirely... and then used Latin characters. A people who took a variety of Rhodian, Massaliote, Carthaginian and Macedonian coinage and adapted it to suit their own, unique, social and economic circumstances, producing both high status and “small change” varieties of coins. They were the people who likely invented chainmail and soap, a people who spread the chicken from Hungary to Belgium (where they developed improved breeds of geese) and developed their own variety of wheat suited to their environment. Those living east of the Rhine employed stone faced walls with vertical wooden reinforcements, those to the west had horizontal reinforcements, affixed with giant iron nails and supported by great earthen ramps, those in Celtiberia constructed giant dry stone walls, whilst those in central Britain constructed huge earth ramparts. The Celts of Gaul developed a lunar calendar, whilst those in the central Alps learnt medicine from the Greeks. We know they were capable of mathematics as they developed a system of weights with which to standardise the production of coinage and jewellery. The Gauls developed armour piercing spears whilst the Celtiberians developed a sword which was so effective it was adopted by the Roman army. Celtic armour, in particular helmets, also appears to have influenced Roman armour to a large degree. They were capable of mass production of items, constructing some of the finest wheeled vehicles in the world and, with the Greeks and Carthaginians, capable of constructing ships which were capable of Atlantic voyages. Their religion was as complex and multilayered as the Nordic religion and modern day Hinduism and some of their temples predated, and exceeded in size, those of Classical Greece. They sacked Rome and Delphi, killed a Macedonian king, travelled to Scythia, served in the armies of the Diadochi, were commanded by Hannibal and Caesar, joined the Cimbri and Teutones (who were possibly Celts themselves) and struck terror into Roman world, in Egypt they carved their names into monuments to show they had visited, and in Galatia they adapted so well to Hellenistic warfare that the army of King Deiotarus served as three legions in the forces of Caesar. The term “barbarian” hides the fact that when we talk about Celts we are dealing with a people who were as technically and socially advanced, in many respects, as the Medieval states of Europe.

So you like the Celts?

Yes, but not the term Celts. The term Celts first appears in Herodotus, where it is applied to a group of people who live around the mouth of the Danube and the Pyrenees, which is where Herodotus believed the source of the Danube lay. When archaeologists began excavated at the Hallstatt mines in Austria in the 19th century, near to the source of the Danube they found large quantities of evidence for an Iron community. The culture of this community (unsurprisingly termed “Halstatt”) was found to have existed over a wide area of central Europe and the upper Danube. It was later discovered that the Hallstatt culture had been succeeded by another culture, named after the Swiss site of La Tène. This La Tène culture was the culture of central and northern Gaul at the time of Caesar’s conquest. Due to Herodotus comments and the fact Caesar said that central Gaul was inhabited by people “who are called Celts in their own language” it was agreed that the La Tène culture was the archaeological culture of the historically attested to Celts, the Hallstatt culture having been a preceding Celtic culture. This is all very well and good except for a few things. Firstly, Herodotus did not believe the Danube began in Austria, but in southern Gaul. Secondly the term “Celt” came to be applied to the Iron Age British and Irish. This is due to two reasons, firstly the Iron Age inhabitants of Britain and Ireland (except in southern Ireland and some parts of Britain) utilised the La Tène culture. Thirdly, during the 18th century when the great linguist Edward Lhuyd had been studying the non-Germanic languages of Britain and Ireland (Irish, Gaelic, Manx, Cornish, Welsh and their continental relative Breton), he had realised, correctly, that these languages were closely related to Gaulish. Unfortunately Lluyd decided to term these languages “Celtic”. Thus it was widely believed, and is still believed, that the Iron Age British and Irish were Celts, despite the fact that no contemporary author ever used the term “Celtic” to describe the inhabitants of these islands, indeed they contrasted the Britons and Irish with the Celts of the continent. Likewise when a church was being erected in 6th century Ireland, the locals complained it was too continental in style and not Irish enough, remarking that they were Irish, not Gauls. It does not help that many people in Ireland, Britain and Brittany since the 18th century have described themselves as Celts. This confusion is made worse by the Celtiberians who were clearly Celts (hence the name and language) yet did not use the La Tène culture. Thus, I am not too fond of the term “Celts”, it is wrought with problems and discrepancies and it creates a distorted, romantic view of the past.

Rant over.

Why the Celts? Romans are pretty cool.

I have been interested in the Celts since I was about 7. The reason for this is my parents. My mother is English and my father is Scottish. I was always curious as to what the difference, aside from accent, was between my parent’s nationalities. After reading through some of the children’s history books which we had around the house I discovered that, prior to the arrival of the Romans, the Ancient Britons (wrongly referred to as Celts) had occupied the land. The division of Britain in two by the Romans had laid the foundations for the later Medieval states of England and Scotland; one influenced more heavily by Germanic culture and the other retaining more vestiges of its “Celtic” past. Around the same time I also discovered Asterix comics and my love affair with the Celts was born!

Why did you join the EBII team?

I had been a long time fan of EB. Although I loved RTW when it was released, the portrayal of the Britons and Gauls left much to be desired; hence I was drawn towards EB. Last year I was asked to help support the team by working on temple descriptions for the Boii. Once I had completed these, along with the Pritanoi and Arevaci descriptions, I was asked to join. Much to my surprise I suddenly found myself in charge of all the Celtic factions due to the then researcher having real life problems.

What is the most challenging aspect of your work?

Time and Spain. Time because, unlike artists and programmers who can take the information before them and begin to work it into something beautiful, as researchers we sometimes need a lot of time to seek out and compile sources, digest and synthesise the information and then present it in a form which is understandable. Fortunately I have access to a good reference library and a personal library of which I am quite proud. Spain, because until I began working on EBII I had only a vague knowledge of the Celtiberians and I cannot read Spanish. However I love working on EBII because it helps me to expand my knowledge while I am waiting to go back to university, it challenges me to look into things I otherwise wouldn’t look into and allows me to work with some very very intelligent researchers who have helped me to expand my personal library and encouraged me a lot.

What faction are you looking forward to playing most upon the release of EBII?

It won’t surprise many but... the Boii. Of all the factions I have worked on I feel I have contributed the most to these guys. I really like the idea of facing the Sweboz, Lugii, Romani, Epeiros, Getae and Makedon from the start (don’t worry, the Boii will not be at war with all of these guys). The new Illyrian units we have for EBII will also make the northern Balkans a far more interesting place to play than in EB and Germanic, Baltic and Slavic unit choices have likewise improved a lot. I am also looking forward to playing as the Saka; the presence of Takashila in EBII will make conquering northern India a real challenge and the new units for the Saka will make it a beautiful experience. The Bosporan Greeks also interest me as a faction; I can just imagine creating a maritime empire from the Crimea to Syracuse.

What’s with these crazy names? Katuuellaunoi, Bibrakte, Bellouakoi, Uerkingetorix?! I can’t find them anywhere in Wikipedia.

These “crazy names” are the attempt by the EBII linguists to spell and write Celtic names in EBII as they would likely have been spelt or pronounced in Celtic. Thus we are using “K” instead of “C” and there are no “V”s only “U”s. Spelling has been changed to reflect the Celtic tongue, “U”s are pronounced as “O”s and endings of words have been altered. For example, the great Gallic leader Vercingetorix is written as Uerkingetorix, the Boii become the Boioi and the Veneti and Bellovaci become the Uenetoi and Bellouakoi. Even I have to become Brennos.

Which mainland Celtic faction received the biggest overhaul in EB2? Can you describe some of the changes?

Well, that’s a tricky question. The obvious, yet cheap, answer would be the Arevaci due to their unique units. However if you mean which of the existing continental Celtic factions has received the biggest overhaul I cannot answer that; the Aedui and Arverni are effectively twins and have received the same amount of overhaul. Some of the changes (which affect all the Celtic factions) are new gods; we have replaced the original (in some cases inaccurate) panoplies with more faction specific ones. For example the Arevaci god of war is Neito, a Celtiberian warrior deity whilst the Aedui goddess of farming is Rosmerta, whose shrine has been excavated at Bibracte, the capital of the Aedui. We have also made building descriptions faction specific. In EB there were a lot of generic building descriptions used across the Celtic factions. In EBII the building descriptions reflect our understanding of the archaeological information. Thus Pritanoi farm descriptions deal with various aspects of farming in the British Iron Age, Boii market descriptions deal with the trade in Bohemia and Moravia and the centres of Boii trade like the oppida Závist and the Arevaci blacksmiths describe the metallurgy of the Celtiberians. Also, each of the descriptions is different; every tier of building will have a unique “poetic” description and historical section to accompany it.

What kind of decisions are we able to make in the new tribal government system?

Dammit! I was hoping nobody would ask me about this. The truth is the tribal system is still under debate. It is a classic example of historical ambition and refusal to compromise accuracy meeting the realities of the MTW II engine. Initially the plan was to have 8 tribal buildings which would be used to reflect 8 unique tribes associated with each of the Celtic factions. For example the Pritanoi would have the Pritanoi, Iceni, Durotriges, Brigantes, Caledoni, Iverni, Silures and Ordorvices. The idea was to be able to construct two tribal buildings in each territory, thereby representing the sort of factional division which Caesar and Posidonius described as having existed in Gaul. However, if we were to do this we would use up too many building slots. Thus it was agreed (or rather I had to accept for the sake of playability) that we only have the one tribal building. Unfortunately we can only code for one ethnicity in each territory, thus we would have to dispense with some of the tribes, something which I did not think was accurate (don’t worry all of this discussion was good natured). We are currently leaving the tribal system to one side until we can come up with a solution. But for the moment we are intending to use the original EB form of Celtic ethnicities; conquer a region and you get access to the ethnicity and its associated benefits.

Arverni and Aedui. Which one do you like better and why?

Tricky, the Aedui were the legitimate successors to the Bituriges-Cubi confederacy which held hegemony over a large part of Gaul, but they were very pro-Roman. The Arverni did lead the fight for Gallic freedom against Caesar, but then they were enemies of my favourite group of tribes; the Belgae. On balance I would go for the Aedui as their capital, Bibracte, has yielded large amounts of archaeological material.

The celtic factions in EBII will be many. Will there be some differences regarding the traits for each faction?

Absolutely, although as described above it seems likely that all the factions will be able to gain all the ethnicities in game. As in EB different ethnicities and different traits will have different effects. For example the Veneti ethnicity will give the bearer improved trade abilities, but conversely will make them a poor general. The Aedui ethnicity will make the bearer influential and a good trader but only a decent warrior. Whilst Caledonians will be war mad but near useless at anything which aids infrastructure.

Will the Pritanoi have an event like the Casse where they would have landed an army in modern day France or Belgium if certain conditions are met? Or maybe there is an event where another faction lands an army on the British Isles?

No. The Pritanoi will not have such an event as there is no evidence that the Pritanoi ever migrated to Gaul, except as mercenaries. We may yet include an event where a “Belgic” army lands in Britain, however we are currently attempting to include an event for the revolt of Boudicca against the Romans.... among others.

Will there be AOR Goidilic units?

Very very very few. The Iron Age Irish have been termed “the invisible people”, such is the paucity of the evidence for their existence. Therefore don’t expect to see as wide a variety of Goidelic units as occurred in EB.

Whose Celtic faction history did you find the most interesting?

Probably the Boii, although the Arevaci come a close second. I like how the Boii were very migratory, how they played a part in the politics of Cisalpine Gaul and Bohemia, that they assisted the Cimbri and Teutones, how they joined in the migration of Helvetii migration and then became clients of the Aedui. They may also have migrated to Galatia, hence the Tolistobogii, which means that some Boii participated in the sack of Delphi. The Arevaci are interesting for the role they played in the Punic wars and their heroic efforts against the Romans.

Regarding the reforms in EBII (namely the Celtic reforms, although if you have information on others, I wouldn't stop you from enlightening us), how much will the reforms be optional? That is, are they like the EBI reforms, where developing your settlements (or another faction developing their settlements) led to the reforms, or will they be based more on the long-term policy that you (the player) take, and may-or-may-not occur in any particular campaign?

I will try to answer this as best I can but I warn you I may be wrong. The reforms will be linked to settlement size and the number of regions held. Unfortunately this means that they will not be optional, you can however avoid them by not doing much. Sorry it’s not much of an explanation, but I am not entirely sure of the correct answer.

As you know, some people translate your mod into different languages : will there be a lot of changes in unit descriptions between the different previews and the release? And in the other text?

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, yes there will be a lot of changes in descriptions and texts. Much of what has been previewed will not change, but I should warn you that there will be a lot to translate with the final release. Sorry.

What makes Celtic culture special in relation to other cultures in the same time period?

Setting aside the Celtiberians, who had their own unique culture, the most obvious difference between the Celts and their neighbours is the wonderful, swirling, abstract patterns which we find on La Tène artwork. Although many of the Celts neighbours adopted aspects of the La Tène style or imported individual pieces of La Tène artwork it is the “Celtic” style par excellence. The Celts also urbanised earlier than their temperate neighbours, and when they did so it was on an impressive scale. There were numerous unique aspects to their culture, such as the lunar calendar, the evolution of their political systems or the fact women were held in much higher regard than in contemporary Mediterranean cultures. Perhaps the two most interesting aspects of Celtic culture, for me at least, are as follows. Firstly they are the first people of temperate Europe to have struck terror into the hearts of the Mediterranean world. Nomadic peoples such as the Cimmerians and Scythians had played a role in the armies of Mesopotamia and the Hittites, but the Celts were genuinely terrifying for the Mediterranean states. They went on to play a major role in the politics of this region and the names of the various Celtic tribes and their leaders are the first recorded names we have for temperate European peoples. Secondly there is something tragic about the Celts. For a people whose culture and language once covered such a vast swathe of Europe, all we have left are artefacts, monuments and a few thousand individuals speaking Celtic languages on the Atlantic seaboard. Unlike the Slavs and Germans, whose cultures and languages are widespread today, the Celts have all but vanished; the first urbanised, civilised temperate Europeans are no more.

What are the main obstacles for the Celtic historian to overcome?

If, like me, you have trained as an archaeologist and critical thinker then you are able to quickly spot sources which are of limited use (there is an awful lot of outdated or heavily romanticised literature on the Celts). The main obstacle for me is language. As Celtic culture existed in so many parts of Europe, studies which focus on Celtic culture are in many different languages. Increasingly studies of the Celtiberians are published in English, as has been the case for Dutch studies for some time. However French, German and Italian archaeologists continue to publish in their own languages (I realise it is hypocritical for an English speaker to complain about this considering our tendency to avoid learning other languages). So yes, the language barrier is the greatest challenge.

Is it true that a Celtic warrior was more skilfull than a Roman legionar in a 1 v1 fight? Whether yes or no, what were the reasons for it?

Considering the wide range of weapons that Celtic warriors employed different times in history and in different locations it is difficult to say. A third century BC Briton armed with a broad bladed spear and bronze faced shield is unlikely to have been able to overcome a contemporary Roman Principe. Then again, a Gaul of the same period, armed with long slashing sword, armour piercing spear and clad in chainmail would probably win. Certainly the Celts could defeat the Romans on a one to one basis, their armour, weapons and tactics were sophisticated. But considering the variation of weapons, armour and possible fighting styles in the Celtic world I think it is an impossible question to answer in a short space of time.

Finally, although it is not as flashy as a unit or a screenshot, I would like to share with you a short example of my work so you can get an idea of why it is taking a while to write these damn things. Here is the description for “Tier 4 Celtic Ports”

Wielding stones and sticks our children, miniature warriors, drive a flock of gulls from a freshly landed catch of fish. Women approach a fine looking captain and offer him, faces blushing, their home woven cloaks to keep him warm upon the waves. Men, tongues slapping against lips, stand and talk business over a pile of pots and hides. And in a sheltered corner, away from prying eyes, a young couple, parted by the seas for many weeks, hold each other in an embrace neither wishes to see end, their eyes welling up with salty tears. This is the place our people built. Finding a beach suitable enough to land vessels upon, our people seized it, built jetties and piers, structures to shelter them from the worst of the weather, and encircled this place with a rampart to prevent smugglers from stealing the wealth of our kin. Now ships, in numbers to rival the summer shoals of fish, assemble here to trade and parley with our people.
Historically, excavations at the known Celtic harbours of Mount Batten, Hengistbury Head and Le Yaudet have shown that all three were protected from the mainland, in the case of Hengistbury Head and Le Yaudet by fortifications, whilst at Mount Batten the rising tides periodically cut the site off from the mainland. Although it is possible that these measures were intended to protect against raids (ships filled with imports would have made a tempting target for raiders) it is more likely that these measures existed to prevent people from leaving, rather than restrict people getting in. In a society where power could rest on the ability to acquire prestige items and extract tolls from trade, smugglers would have been an unwelcome presence. Enclosing these ports with fortifications, or having the tied cut them off from the mainland, would thus allow the ruling classes to better control the flow of goods in and out of the harbours.

And... “Tier 2 Boii Mining Complex”

As the divine sun ascends to his heavenly kingdom each morn, pulled in his redolent chariot by fiery steeds, his rays shine upon our people. They shine upon golden rings, bronze helmets, iron tools, silver coins and, most poignantly, upon the mother of these objects, the mountains. Within the halls of the mountains, through dark, dripping shafts, our people work. Hacking at the mountains walls, breaking through stone doors and looting cavernous halls of their wealth, our people work to acquire riches. Adept at mining like no other people in the known world, our people move the unmovable and take the unassailable. From the mouths of mine shafts come as procession of gold, iron, silver, copper and zinc bearers, the sun’s rays catching them as they make their way towards our settlement.
Historically, it was the Keltoi of central Europe, such as the Boioi who developed the first oppida. With the rise of the oppida came intensification in industry and mining was no exception to this phenomenon. The Boioi and their neighbours were already experienced miners by the time the first oppida began to be constructed in the region. The huge numbers of gold and bronze objects recovered from Boioi oppida such as Stradonice and Závist attest to the ability of the Boioi to mine gold and copper on a large scale. Neighbours of the Boioi, such as the Noroi and the Tauriskoi, also appear to have been adept miners. The Noroi became renowned for the quality of the iron they produced; Pliny said that it was rivalled only by the Pahlava and Chinese for its quality. The quality of Noroi ironwork was sufficient that it was exported in quantity to Italy where it successfully competed, in the form of finished goods like anvils, rings, hooks and vessels, with Italian ironwork. Likewise the Tauriskoi were reputed, by Polybius, to be successful gold miners, with a mine in the vicinity of Aquileia.

Once again, on behalf of the team, I would like to thank everyone for their patience in waiting for EBII and once again appeal for the following (in order of precedence):
-People with knowledge of North Africa and the Numidian kingdoms in our time period
-Historians and archaeologists who have studied the cultures and history of the EBII timeframe
-2D and 3D Modellers
-Programmers and Scripters
-Proof readers
-Composers and people with a proven record of producing videos

[Moros]

Greetings Europa Barbarorum II fans! After a bit of protracted wait we are pleased to present an interview with abou (original date: 08-08-13, 22:25)

EBII: What is your role in the EBII team?

My role has mostly been as a Hellenistic historian and faction coordinator for Arche Seleukeia. I work a lot with paullus (who is a machine, btw) in concepting how we want the Hellenistic factions to appear and feel. Then they guys who work on the units and the back-end of the game make it all possible. For the past few years, however, I've been in and out due to real life. I recently graduated from veterinary school and have been working.

EBII: How did you end up joining the team?

I originally joined as a fan working on historical battles for the team. I did a few here and there with the Romans, but those were never worthy of an official team release. If you've played EB1's Magnesia, Panion, Areios, and Raphia battles, that was my work along with some of the other guys on the team.

The limitations of the AI behavior slowed down further development of historical battles and so I found myself contributing in other areas -- including voice acting for the Punic voicemod. I guess I must have fooled the other guys on the team into thinking I knew what I was talking about, because I'm still here! I even began the team's Twitter account so we could better keep the fans informed as to the progress of the mod. Something that I wish I had when I was a fan.

EBII: Why the Seleukids in particular and not one of the other Hellenistic kingdoms?

I think many of us who started playing Rome: Total War quickly became enamored with Roman history. I was studying Latin at the time and picked up a lot of books on the Roman military. Of course, I came across all of those battles where the Romans had won. For a time, I thought as many others did: man, everyone other than Rome must have sucked at everything to always get beaten so badly.

To an extent, this was an attitude that was also conveyed through the writers of these books. It was an easy trap to get yourself sucked into. But then, like many others, I started asking questions. The Battle of Raphia in particular grabbed my attention. Everyone seemed ready to criticize Antiochos III for running off chasing after Ptolemy; thereby losing the battle. Granted, it was not the tactically correct thing to do, but what if he was trying to capture or kill Ptolemy? What would have happened if he had done either of those things? Even a loss at Raphia wouldn't have mattered much if he held the body (alive or dead) of his rival.

Further examination of Antiochos III's career shows that he had a long line of military successes. In crossing the Elburz mountain range, faced with hostiles all around him, Antiochos managed to make the much praised Hannibal look like a chump. Seleukid history is like that.

The Seleukids dreamed big, did big, succeeded big, and – yes – even failed big. How could you not be attracted to them? Add in a relatively egalitarian society (at least as far as we can tell) and the Seleukid empire was an easy choice for me.

EBII: How big will the Arche Seleukia unit roster be in EBII? Will it be larger than in EB?

To be blunt: pretty damn big. We've reevaluated a lot of the original EB units and so expect tweaks, unit types being dropped or replaced, and new units. I can't say for certain what the new total will be. One of the things that paullus and I talked about was the idea of maybe taking a unit such as the hypaspistai and reforming them later with a thorakitai-like kit or up-armoring the hetairoi. M2TW's blacksmith system can certainly help us with this. Another thought is giving the reformed phalangites of Makedonia to the Seleukids as well. In addition, we'll probably see more development of regional units, but that will be for later releases.

For the first release, just expect a minimum sampling of units. There will be enough to play a game with, but not much beyond that.

EBII: Can we expect to see any scripted events for the AS, or do you prefer to let the player forge their own history?

There is one thing in particular that comes to mind for the first release. We're giving the player quite a bit of control over appointments to the royal court and forming the king's inner circle. This allows you to choose which generals you want to reward or neglect. There will be more later on, but how exactly that all comes together is yet to be seen.

Cataphract reforms? Maybe.

EBII: Will the diplomatic starting conditions be the same for EBII? How will Pergamon and Takashila relate to the AS, both in starting diplomacy and victory conditions?

The Seleukid victory conditions will cover roughly the same geographical areas as in EB. Pergamon will start allied to the Seleukids, but may not have the best relations. Takashila will also start off allied as their relations seemed to always be amiable as far as we can tell.

EBII: Do you have a favourite Seleukid Basileus? If so, why that particular individual?

That's tough to answer. The Seleukids seemed to have a lot of good kings, but always bad luck. Perhaps that is why the cult of Tyche in Antioch was so popular.

Seleukos Nikator started a dynasty and reconquered much of what Alexander had taken from Darius. And he had done it starting from scratch. He seems to have been an incredibly popular leader, who was larger than life.

Antiochos I Soter, dealing with rebellion in the west after his father died, solidified the institutions of the state and appears to have created the cult around his family and many of the myths of his father. This was incredibly important in shifting the focus of the Makedonian world away from Alexander and onto individual dynasts to legitimize their rule. Maybe not militarily the most successful, but politically he was incredibly shrewd.

Antiochos III Megas should have whole libraries devoted to him. Likely my favorite based on the fact that we have the most information on him. Despite being better known for his military defeats, he had many, many successes that expanded the empire greatly. Although most people would criticize his decision to lead from the front of his cavalry, he inspired much loyalty in his army and was well known for his bravery and skill in battle.

Antiochos IV gets an honorable mention. Recent scholarship has reexamined his legacy, with one book in particular getting much praise. However, it's in German so... yeah.

EBII: Will the AS be the same size as in EB or has the team changed this, if so what caused the change of mind?

It will be the same size, geographically. Within that same area, however, are added cities. Without a doubt, it will be overwhelming for anyone except some veteran players.

EBII: Have there been any changes to the way the player will govern the Arche Seleukia in EBII?

A little bit. We've altered the way our government system works. Then there are the additions of the royal court system. In the future, we may add more emphasis to the king's authority. Having recently played vanilla M2TW for the first time, I never experienced much positive or negative events from this, but the potential is there.

EBII: In your opinion was it the Romans or the Parthians who were responsible for the demise of the historical AS? Or was the kingdom doomed from the beginning?

Rome and Parthia certainly played their part, but I would say that it was betrayal within the Seleukid empire that was its downfall. The Seleukids knew how to beat the Parthians on the field and did so. Antiochos III managed to soundly defeat them on his anabasis. Antiochos VII was successful up until his small party was ambushed while the army was spread out for winter.

There is some debate about what would have happened had Antiochos III continued the war, but his son Antiochos IV is best known for the “Line in the sand” episode. I think many people recognize that as Rome having so great a control over the Hellenistic kingdoms that they were able to toy with them. I would point out, however, that the Treaty of Apamea was in no way enforced up to or even after that event. Antiochos IV still had his elephants; still had his Mediterranean navy; and still dipped his hand into affairs across the Tauros mountain range. For a people as famously severe as the Romans to not enforce the provisions of such a treaty is surprising unless they really couldn't.

Over and over again, we read about treachery within the Seleukid realm itself. Perhaps it was its massive size that allowed this to happen, making it a doomed state. Whether it was Ptolemy Keraunos assassinating Seleukos Nikator or the Baktrian and Parthian satraps rebelling or even the decades of internal fighting in Syria, it seems the biggest danger to the Seleukid empire was itself. It was due to these periods of crises that allowed other states to gobble up territory.

EBII: Do you have a favourite Seleukid unit?

Probably the hetairoi. The hypaspistai unit is a close second.

EBII:Any chance of some pictures of the Seleukids?

I no longer have the best computer for this, but here are some screen grabs.

Attachment 10518

Attachment 10517

Attachment 10519

Attachment 10520













And the capital itself!

EBII: Are there any skills/specialists the team is currently looking for?

Mostly unit artists and coding. These are always areas where help is needed. Ideally we could get a big team of guys, whom the historians can set to work at getting new units done, correcting errors on previous units that weren't caught until later, or adding more variety to units that were completed using previously modeled equipment just so we could get to a first release faster.

Much the same can be said for coding. We all remember the dreaded CTDs from EB1. Do I need to say more?

Finally: animations. Animators, animators, animators.

cahtush asks: "How do you feel about the Seleucid empires portrayal in Rome 2?"

I can't say too much toward that as I haven't seen many details. I was surprised at the map they released. The guys at CA have certainly improved their historical accuracy, but it could be better. What I will say, however, is the game does look very, very good with new features that will improve gameplay.

Slath's asks: "Will the Seleukid Empire be at a higher difficulty level than EB1? Because at EB1, its level was Very Challenging, but it was not too difficult."

With the addition of new factions on either side, whose major room for expansion is at your expense, I would expect an increase in difficulty for the Seleukids. In addition, the sheer size of the empire makes managing it difficult and – as I said above – overwhelming. To the player's benefit, the Seleukids will still have one of the most flexible and powerful militaries available.

Tar-Amdukanaro asks: " What new research, in terms of units or new discoveries have been done so far concerning Arche Seleukeia"

Not too much has come out that will help us directly with game play. Some of the biggest work has been looking at the "feel" of the faction and correcting it. By this, I mean to mainly remove the heavy emphasis off Alexander the Great and to place it on the Seleukid dynasty itself. A lot of historians -- professional and amateur -- made it seem like everyone and everything was about Alexander until Rome took over. The actual evidence we have shows that the successors quickly abandoned Alexander's legacy for their own. After all, it was their thrones, not his. And this is something that has been building with greater and greater speed for a few decades now. So whether it was From Samarkhand to Sardis or The Roman War of Antiochos the Great or a new German biography and analysis of Antiochos IV, people have put forth better analyses to piece together this state that ruled a massive geographical area for centuries.

Other than that, I can't say too much has come up. A lot of the information available is actually quite old. It's just a matter of reinterpreting it so that the pieces of knowledge we have better mesh with each other -- for example our Peltastai Makedones. Our big hope is in the Babylonian Astronomical diaries, but the British Museum (I think) has a sort of monopoly on them and is taking their sweet time in publishing them.

Divico asks: I'm interested in knowing how many people from EB1 is also in EB2. Thank you so much.

Not nearly enough! Only a handful stayed on from EB1 to EB2. Even then, the amount of turnover from the beginning of EB1 to its final release is kind of staggering. But that is what happens. Real life takes over and we aren't paid. I wish I could work on the mod 8 hours a day, but I just can't. I was even on a hiatus for several months (maybe even years) because of school, getting my license to practice medicine, and work.

If any wealthy patrons are out there...


We hope you have enjoyed this interview. Once again, a big thank you to all our fans for sticking with us for all this time, together we will get there!