After playing EB 1.2 a sugestion for EB II

[4th Regiment]

I am playing EB 1.2 for about 10 days now. It is great improvement compared to 0.8 which I have played few years ago. Definitely EB 1.2 is the best mod I have played so far considering both RTW and MTW 2.

But I will give some suggestions for next release...I hope you will cope with problems you have with buildings in towns

My suggestion is maybe too radical, and not so cosmetically but units, buildings, engine, are already there so it will not be big work. So, take some time to listen my explanation to the end.

Well…my suggestion is to give up all this European barbarian factions, and leave Iberia, Gaul, Britannia, Germany, Dacia etc as it realistically was – endless sea of various tribes, tribal federations, which were emerging and disappearing, with no constant boundaries, state organization etc. Why make artificial factions and “states” of some of the tribes when realistically in time span of the mod it was not a case. It should be, just one big rebel own territory, of course with various buildings and unique units for every region, if player decide to pursue conquest there. Of course, with aggressive rebel AI, strong rebel armies and garrisons, and big cultural difference and unrest it should be made very difficult, as it was, for every civilized faction. Very interesting realistic scripting events can be made to make it even more realistic. For example if you share border with some of the barbarians, you will receive a message from time to time, from some barbarian war lord, to pay a tribute. If you refuse, big barbarian army will appear into your border land. Or if you enter barbarian land with your army, it will trigger mobilization of Barbarians in region. This kind of concept would be much more realistic and will indeed with the name of EB. Also, it will free several more slots for important real civilized factions like Syracuse, Pergamon, or some of Asia Minor factions etc. thus making diplomacy and warfare and overall strategy much more difficult and interesting in civilized area.

Also, cutting of far south of the map with Saba faction, which was historically isolated from rest, and far north of the map– aprox no further north than German shores of Baltic, since those northern euro region were not indeed relevant to time span of the mod, or even much latter. This will free some slots for more regions and towns in relevant part of the map.

And on the end, to further improve my suggestion about unrest and civilization difference when conquering foreign, and especially barbarian regions. Unrest should be high and it should get higher every time when you build non native cultural/administrative building. But those building will decrease civilization difference and unrest will go down, just by passing of time. This will simulate gradual cultural assimilation of the region, and showing how difficult it would be in the begging to purse such a politics in beginning. Thus leaving player option or to start aggressive assimilation in the beginning, or to wait years for unrest go down, and than try to develop those regions.

This is maybe too radical, but who like to play old stile, could always stick to EB 1.2

Thanks.

[Hannibalus]

As I understand you want to have exactly the contrary as it is now.
The declared purpose in EB ist that the so called barbarian factions should have the same deepness and variety as it is by the civilized factions.
The antic people which where all called by the Romans with the common name barbarians where not all the same. They had different language, different culture and different habits. Beside of this many barbarian factions, which where looked by the romans as wild and unimportant became today very powerful and civilized nations. Other very civilized and mighty nations which seemed at a certain point of history that they will be the most powerful in the world, they disappeared completely.(for ex. Karthago)
If the game would focus only on a single nation than those modders which are not belonging to that nation may be cannot identify himself with this purpose.
I can understand you if you are Italian and want to focus on Rome or if you are Greek and want to focus on Greece but i think this mod should be more international and as realistic as possible.
When the mod is ready than could be created national submods with focus on different nations.

[Foot]

Well done for completely misunderstanding the entire point of EB. 5* for you!

endless sea of various tribes, tribal federations, which were emerging and disappearing, with no constant boundaries, state organization etc. Why make artificial factions and “states” of some of the tribes when realistically in time span of the mod it was not a case.

Incorrect. They were not emerging and disappearing like some turbulent sea of identity. The political organisation of Gaul and Iberia was extremely complex in places. The Gallic tribes were ruled over, in many cases, by something very much akin to a Senate. Indeed, the Carnutes were the protector of Druidic Council who were the lawyers and intellectuals of all of Gaul and their influence even extended beyond this.

For example if you share border with some of the barbarians, you will receive a message from time to time, from some barbarian war lord, to pay a tribute.

What kind of idea is this. Barbarians didn't run around threatening mass migration into people's territory. Gallic kings had very small armies of professionals and bondsmen. Huge migrations were rare and were not controlled by the king. They likely resulted from a population explosion and would not have been utilised as a threat to "civilised" factions.

This kind of concept would be much more realistic and will indeed with the name of EB.

This kind of concept would be much less realistic and will indeed not fit with the name of EB.

since those northern euro region were not indeed relevant to time span of the mod, or even much latter.

Relevant for who. The classical authors we read nowadays or to the great civilisations that lived in that part of the world.

Please please please keep an open mind and go and read some history books. You did promise to when you installed EBI.

Foot

[Horatius Flaccus]

Wasn't the name 'Europa Barbarorum' enough for you to know what this mod is all about?

[4th Regiment]

First at all “people WILL be able to play with the Barbarian cultures, learn about their history, and use their super cool units” since all those building and units will remain in place and will be available to the player if he conquer some of those barbarian regions.

Second, I perfectly know that tribal organization and tribal federations etc were sometimes very complex … tribal meetings of chieftains could be “something like senate”. I never said those people were like wild monkeys but it different thing from state organized society. In gamer terminology, maybe it is easer to explain to you how societies are leveled in very complex and serious game as Europa Universalis, where tribal federations and tribal democracy is lowest level of state/civilization organization. Or to make it simple – we read about Barbarians from Roman and Greek sources and libraries, not other way around.

You took is too personal, like I have insulted you, or your ancestors. Actually my ancestors like 9o% of Europeans were Barbarians. Simply, with these factions slots available, my suggestion of organizing the game will give more realistic and challenging feeling– I really do not have anything against Barbarians.

And yes, finally the name EB will be even more proved – since apart of Rome and Greeko-Macedonians and Cartage foothold in Iberia, rest of the Europe will be that “sea of Barbarians”.

[Foot]

I don't really care about ancestors. What I am insulted by is that you seem to be oblivious to a) what EB is trying to do (your comments are exactly the opposite that we try to encourage) and b) your extremely bad interpretation and understanding of the history of this period.

We must look beyond the bias writings of Roman and Greek authors, and instead study them in the context of archaelogy amongst other disciplines.

I'm sure that your idea has some gameplay merit, but it would be a one-sided history, something that we have actively worked against. Wrong mod, wrong forum, try elsewhere.

Foot

[Dargaron]

I don't really care about ancestors. What I am insulted by is that you seem to be oblivious to a) what EB is trying to do (your comments are exactly the opposite that we try to encourage) and b) your extremely bad interpretation and understanding of the history of this period.

We must look beyond the bias writings of Roman and Greek authors, and instead study them in the context of archaelogy amongst other disciplines.

I'm sure that your idea has some gameplay merit, but it would be a one-sided history, something that we have actively worked against. Wrong mod, wrong forum, try elsewhere.

Foot

First of all, +1 to this.

Now, about 4th Regiment. (Who kindly linked to this thread from his identical thread(Link) in the Europa Barbarorum sub-forum, started about 5 hours after this one.) I would have to ask this, What exactly would qualify as a "state", because, if I read this paragraph right,

Second, I perfectly know that tribal organization and tribal federations etc were sometimes very complex … tribal meetings of chieftains could be “something like senate”. I never said those people were like wild monkeys but it different thing from state organized society. In gamer terminology, maybe it is easer to explain to you how societies are leveled in very complex and serious game as Europa Universalis, where tribal federations and tribal democracy is lowest level of state/civilization organization. Or to make it simple – we read about Barbarians from Roman and Greek sources and libraries, not other way around

then classical Athens was not a "state", due to its directly democratic nature, and indeed, its "Tribal Democracy". What were the Delian and Peloponnesian leagues but "tribal federations", groups of smaller political entities, drawn (mostly,) from the same etnicity.(the Dorian and Ionian language groups) Also, just because a style of government doesn't look like our own, does not mean that it is irrelevant, or "the lowest level" of anything.

The problem with the argument that ,

"we read about Barbarians from Roman and Greek sources and libraries, not other way around."

is that this accounts for only one of a myriad of possibilities, that just happens to be the one that we walk. Had Trajan been weak-willed and pathetic, who knows, Dacia might have spread into the Balkans and booted the Romans off Thraikan soil. That is only one instance where history might have taken a different turn, and may have been substantially changed for it.

As the Europa Barbarorum team (or so I heard ) contains many historians, of above collage level, and specializing in this timeframe, I'm guessing that the team did their research, and did not

make artificial factions and “states” of some of the tribes when realistically in time span of the mod it was not a case.

If I may humbly offer a source in a thread where Foot has posted, the Great Company course "Rome and the Barbarians" has a pretty good, although no-doubt introductory, discription of the various barbarian groups, from the Gauls and Britons to the Parthans and Dacians. Link here. It's pretty good, but very expensive when not on sale.

[athanaric]

Or to make it simple – we read about Barbarians from Roman and Greek sources and libraries, not other way around.

Actually, we also read from archeological finds, etc. AND we apply a lot of source criticism to those Roman and Greek sources, oh yes. If we didn't, we could as well tell some fairy-tales.

There are other mods which focus more on your region of interest, for example RTR, which has more provinces in the Mediterranean in exchange for a slightly smaller map and fewer "Barbarian" provinces and factions than EB.

[Ludens]

Or to make it simple – we read about Barbarians from Roman and Greek sources and libraries, not other way around.

That's the point. History has been written by the victors. EB's purpose is to get people to look beyond the traditional Romano-centric view of history.

You are absolutely right that the barbarians were not as well organized as the Romans, but your comments suggest that they acted like a bunch of mountain robbers. That's is not historical, nor realistic. The Celtic confederacies at least were more than just a collection of warlords, and did conduct diplomacy beyond mere extortion. They certainly were not shifting coalitions in a sea of barbarians. And, as Dargaron points out, the coalitions formed by the Greeks were often not that long-lasting either. The reason they get more scholarly attention than the barbarian confederacies is simply because there are more primary sources on the Greek world.

Your support is appreciated but, like Foot wrote, you have misjudged EB's intent.

[ACS]

That's the point. History has been written by the victors.

[Atilius]

History has been written by the victors.

Thucydides and Polybios always spring to mind when this assertion is made.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

[SimpleCourage47]

The reason people are taking this so much to heart is because like me i guess, people who play EB play for accuracy and immersion. Doing your idea removes both of these aspects, also your generalisation of 'barbarians' is insulting. Heard of soap ? good 'barbarian' invention and also many other things besides.

I would advise reading books by this author: Peter Berresford Ellis, to tame your ignorance. As foot said Roman/Greek and other classical writers are very biased to their home country/city state. So if the team wanted a Tacitus EB then your idea would hold merit however it goes against this mod's believes. If you made this post over in the SPQR forum then you might find a audience as they focus on roman side of things.

[Hoplitai]

The reason people are taking this so much to heart is because like me i guess, people who play EB play for accuracy and immersion. Doing your idea removes both of these aspects, also your generalisation of 'barbarians' is insulting. Heard of soap ? good 'barbarian' invention and also many other things besides.

I would advise reading books by this author: Peter Berresford Ellis, to tame your ignorance. As foot said Roman/Greek and other classical writers are very biased to their home country/city state. So if the team wanted a Tacitus EB then your idea would hold merit however it goes against this mod's believes. If you made this post over in the SPQR forum then you might find a audience as they focus on roman side of things.

Soap is credited as an ancient Babylonian Invention. Anyway, its just a game. What whats his face is arguing makes sense, except for the fact it would make many players "dreams" of playing as a barbarian faction and uniting barbarians and building a barbarian empire useless. Everyone hates when there are unplayable factions and just making them part of the Rebel faction takes away alot of personality. Too bad we dont have unlimited factions, which would solve our problem. EB is trying to bring as Accurate and Diverse a playing field as possible and taking away a buncha factions and making them Rebels would defeat that purpose

[NoFrag]

The only thing this mod need, in my humble opinion, is a way to make sure AI stop throwing ALL-ELITE PHALANX armies at you. Seas of silver shields is weird.

[Hannibalus]

RTW, MTW2 and EB are just simulations of the reality.
And no simulation is perfect because it has limited resources.
In the contrary simulations are distortions of the reality and can represent just some very limited aspects of the reality. The reality is unlimited complex and you can never know every detail of it.
Even what we know abut the history a very big part is probably just subjective feelings of the historians or manipulations of the politic. But we can rely only on this evidences what we know.
My opinion if to take a faction or another to consider following in importance order:
- how big was the population controlled by that faction over the time period of the game
- how big was the territory controlled by the faction and how much natural resources(relevant for that period) owned (desert less valuable because no mineral oil exploitation in that period)
- how big was the political, diplomatic, military, cultural influence(world wonders) of that faction over his neighbors
- how much was the cultural, military and political influence of that faction for the future
May be they have developed something (democracy, a new religion, roads, money, a new alphabet- latin) which had a massive influence on the world after the game period.

So I would say the must important factors to have a faction or not would be after my opinion the resources controlled (human, territorial and material) in that period. However I find also important in a smaller scale to consider the influence of that faction on the world for that period and for the future. By that influence generally the civilized nations on that time had a greater role. But that must be analyzed for each case because many barbarian nations (skythans, sarmatians) had a very important influence on the development of the military tehnic and horse riding.

[SimpleCourage47]

Soap is credited as an ancient Babylonian Invention. Anyway, its just a game. What whats his face is arguing makes sense, except for the fact it would make many players "dreams" of playing as a barbarian faction and uniting barbarians and building a barbarian empire useless. Everyone hates when there are unplayable factions and just making them part of the Rebel faction takes away alot of personality. Too bad we dont have unlimited factions, which would solve our problem. EB is trying to bring as Accurate and Diverse a playing field as possible and taking away a buncha factions and making them Rebels would defeat that purpose

From what I've read, funnily enough on the EB forum at the org, it was either Germans or Celts that invented soap. Not really 'just a game'. If i wanted just a game i would play vanilla with patches or some basic fixes mod that doesn't change anything major. However i wanted a mod that historically,accurately and unbiasedly gives me the ancient world as best as possible to play. On a game term maybe there is merit but it changes everything that is EB.

[Hoplitai]

Celtic tribes independently may have invented a soap like substance, out of ashes and lye I believe. But in terms of the 1st people to invent soap, its the Ancient Babylonians around 2200 B.C. written on a clay tablet. Well obviously yes its why we play, but dont be too nasty to him for having ideas, because it is a game and not something that impacts how we run our life is all.

[ISA Gunner]

Heard of soap ? good 'barbarian' invention

What!? Infinity Ward are a bunch of uncivilized, rowdy barbaric scum!? :O

[Shabby_Ronin]

Less pedagoguery

More programming.

I'm gonna be ing dead or the Browns will win a Superbowl before this is out.

[SimpleCourage47]

I would not call it nasty. He is welcome to discuss ideas but he and you should not expect a positive reaction from people (when i say positive i mean along the lines of 'yea that's a great idea'.) as said it is not the point of EB. Though he and yourself put your ideas across in a none demanding or aggressive way so if i seemed 'nasty' it wasn't my intention.