A Case for the Belgae

[Caligula Caesar]

There haven't been enough debates on this forum lately, so I've decided to make an effort to start one

The Belgae have a good case to be a separate faction for several reasons, both historical accuracy and gameplay-wise. They would have (slightly) different units, because the Remi and Treveri (two Belgic tribes) were both reported to have strong cavalry, as were the nearby Batavians. Clearly the place was a good cavalry-producing area. Also, Ceasar reports that several tribes, including the Eburones (who destroyed a Roman legion), were "Germans west of the Rhine" (German or the descendants of Germans), though they had Celtic names. Their units may have some Germanic influences. I can imagine that they would wear more clothes as well, since it is a bit colder there than in Cisalpine Gaul and the south of France (BTW, I still think the Gauls shouldn't all be fighting bare-chested, only the Gaesatae)

The Gauls weren't united, and nor were the Germans. However, the unification of both of those lands happens way too quickly in ExRM. In fact, the Gauls are not averse to carrying on going and conquering more lands... Anyway, if you make the Germans into a central German tribe (Cherusci, Suebi or perhaps Cimbri), and the Gauls into a southern Gallic tribe (perhaps the Arverni, Aedui or even Sequani), then there is plenty space for another faction in between them. The Belgae were regarded as the toughest of the Gauls and certainly were a force to be reckoned with if they destroyed a legion, something not many Gallic tribes can claim to have done. It will make things more interesting for people playing as the Gauls and people trying to conquer the Gauls, as well as hold back the Germans.

An interesting possibility would be to add in the Channel Tunnel (I mean a landbridge of course ) and have a rebel fort blocking the other side with an immovable character of a certain age within it. Since a character generally dies between 60 and 65, you could control about when the Belgae are allowed to start expanding into Britain (when controlled by the AI).

If you are wondering why they shouldn't be part of the superfaction, my experience with a superfaction is that they tend not to be too active. They seem to be active at the start, but even with a hefty money script they go inactive, training troops so they have a stack or two in each region but doing nothing with them (they do a good job of keeping the AI from capturing their regions though).

So, what do you think?

[Maurits]

This might, also from a historical point of view, be a very good idea. When you include the Belgae as a faction you might bring a little more life in the otherwise not very active north-western part of the map. But I'm wondering: why would you put a landbridge to Brittain in place? As far as I know neither Belgae nor Batavi or any other tribe invaded Brittain untill the Romans and later the Saxons came. So why would you give them this opportunity? Maybe some fleets would also stimulate them to do this, but then in a more historical way.

I'm just calling some of my toughts, maybe you can do something with them

[fourganger]

This might, also from a historical point of view, be a very good idea. When you include the Belgae as a faction you might bring a little more life in the otherwise not very active north-western part of the map. But I'm wondering: why would you put a landbridge to Brittain in place? As far as I know neither Belgae nor Batavi or any other tribe invaded Brittain untill the Romans and later the Saxons came. So why would you give them this opportunity? Maybe some fleets would also stimulate them to do this, but then in a more historical way.

I'm just calling some of my toughts, maybe you can do something with them

IIRC, Caesar did claim that the Belgae had a presence in Britain, and that some of them fled there after their defeat in Gaul. I did always assume that this was probably a lie to give him a premise for going to Britain though. Still, no smoke without fire and all that.

[Maurits]

Which Caesar? The one or CC

[Carac Caratacus]

yeah it is difficult as the 'celts', which really included the germanic tribes also in terms of cultural similarities, were a very widespread group. And while not ever unified in the way a Rome/Greece/Egypt was, these people were one of the big barriers to roman expansion, so were obviously important.

Some links with more detailed info that may help decide who to keep and how to represent them better for ExRM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_...in_and_Ireland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient.../iron_01.shtml - the Belgae were indeed one of britons tribes in the south east.

[Quinn Inuit]

IIRC, Caesar did claim that the Belgae had a presence in Britain, and that some of them fled there after their defeat in Gaul. I did always assume that this was probably a lie to give him a premise for going to Britain though. Still, no smoke without fire and all that.

Good point. I wouldn't be surprised if a few did go over there.

Well, the Celtiberians, Arverni/Aedui and Germans have to be in. So do the Thracians/Dacians/Getae. Thats 4. I'd say Pergamon should also be in, so 5. I would have the 6th faction as the Belgae. Now, this leaves quite a large trail of rebel regions between the western Balkans and the Baltic Sea, so I would make the seventh a superfaction comprising of all the other factions you mentioned + another German tribe and another Gallic one, since there will be space for it.

That's do-able. I think you could reasonably (given that they're all going to have the same type of general's cavalry) have a superfaction with the the Lusitanni, Cisalpine Gauls, British, a few Illyrians (not to close to Cisalpine Gaul, though), Veneti, Bastarnae, and maybe the Batavi.

Here's the problem, though: with this plan, you lose the opportunity to have the game start with a Galatian horde. It also prevents starting with a Greek Cities superfaction, but that's the one to which I'm least attached.

[Caligula Caesar]

Well, it is thought by many that the Celts came to England from Europe (the exception is the guy I saw on TV who claimed the Celts never came but the Britons adopted Celtic culture). Also, the Atrebates (I think) led by Commios went over in the time of Caesar. But the only real reason for adding a landbridge would be to make sure those provinces don't go completely to waste.

[Quinn Inuit]

For the record, a friend of mine studied the spread of Celts through Europe and I've looked into the linguistic and folklore evidence of the conquest. Based on that, I think the most likely scenario is that Celts gradually spread through the British Isles in several waves, displacing and/or conquering the locals but not eradicating them.

I think your argument for the Belgae is strong. I agree entirely that they are well-positioned gameplay-wise and that they were tough.

Implementation is the tricky part. Leaving aside the question of superfactions for the moment, our problem is that we have too many Gauls. For European barbarians, we have the Iberians, the Lusitanni, the Arverni or Aedui, the Cisalpine Gauls whose name escapes me ATM, the British, the Belgae, the Germans, the Illyrians, the Thracians, the Dacians, the Galatians, and the Bastarnae. There are good arguments for including _all_ of those factions. Unfortunately, we've only got seven slots for them (and that's not even counting Pergamum, which it would be nice to have).

[Caligula Caesar]

Well, the Celtiberians, Arverni/Aedui and Germans have to be in. So do the Thracians/Dacians/Getae. Thats 4. I'd say Pergamon should also be in, so 5. I would have the 6th faction as the Belgae. Now, this leaves quite a large trail of rebel regions between the western Balkans and the Baltic Sea, so I would make the seventh a superfaction comprising of all the other factions you mentioned + another German tribe and another Gallic one, since there will be space for it.

[Quinn Inuit]

Definitely, and what I'd like to see is more pushback than the rebel faction offers.

[Maurits]

But with a superfaction, won't you have the risk that these guys won't do anything because their regions are too far apart? Or doesn't that matter?

[Quinn Inuit]

Maybe. I'm going to have to do some testing to see what happens if you start each superfaction territory off with a decent army and give them a good money script.

[Quinn Inuit]

So, going back to this issue, which do you guys think would be better? A Belgae faction or starting Galatia off as a horde?

[Carac Caratacus]

wont it depend on the gallic nations become a homiginzed superfaction? What land holdings would a Belgae faction have exactly, and how would that fit in with the Superfaction model?

[Maurits]

And, with a superfaction, won't that easilly wipe out the Belgae?

[Caligula Caesar]

I think people seem to consistantly misinterpret superfaction (just as I do with German poems )

What the setup in Gaul would look like would be this: All the regions in Gaul would be rebel except for:

a) The Arverni or Aedui

b) The Belgae (one or two of the tribes)

c) One or two regions in the superfaction. Probably the other one from a) and something in Cisalpine Gaul and maybe another region.

The idea of a superfaction is not to wipe out the other factions, but to provide blocks where they don't conquer or find it harder to conquer. Besides that, they are to enhance the gameplay for the player, since rebels don't attack (unless you enter tehir regions)

[Quinn Inuit]

CC is totally correct. That's exactly what I was planning with the superfaction, although I might not include the Aedui in it. I like the Arverni as a faction, and I'm worried the Aedui are too close to the Insubres, whom I really want in the superfaction.

One other thing I like about the superfaction is that it'll be more likely to defend itself effectively. If you conquer Area A from the Insubres, they'll hit back from Area B where the rebel faction would just wander off.

[pannonian]

CC is totally correct. That's exactly what I was planning with the superfaction, although I might not include the Aedui in it. I like the Arverni as a faction, and I'm worried the Aedui are too close to the Insubres, whom I really want in the superfaction.

One other thing I like about the superfaction is that it'll be more likely to defend itself effectively. If you conquer Area A from the Insubres, they'll hit back from Area B where the rebel faction would just wander off.

If the super faction thing works, how about a super faction that has a province in western Anatolia and another in the Levant? That would help to check the unification of these cashcows, and thus the development of the eastern megafaction. If it can be justified, Halicarnassus-Rhodes, thus giving them some secure income, plus Tyre-Sidon and maybe Jerusalem. Maybe Arsinoe as well.

[Quinn Inuit]

I don't know how to make that work historically, though. Does anyone remember the name of that guy who controlled a bit of the coast of southwestern Asia Minor and a chunk of eastern Crete? His empire is the nearest thing I can think of to something that would fit the bill.

[pannonian]

I don't know how to make that work historically, though. Does anyone remember the name of that guy who controlled a bit of the coast of southwestern Asia Minor and a chunk of eastern Crete? His empire is the nearest thing I can think of to something that would fit the bill.

The main point of the exercise is to split up the Levant-Cyprus trading triangle. If the Phoenician cities had a measure of independence, then it may be historically justifiable to make them independent from the Ptolies. Although they may then be vulnerable to takeover, hence the added suggestion of a couple of mutually trading provinces in the west, which can prove a threat to Cyprus and Pergamum, but which is safe from the immediate threat in Syria. While the western provinces wouldn't really fit the description, the eastern provinces could be factionalised as "independent Semitic states".