Faction speculation thread

[konstantis]

while checking the official site i came across this http://www.europabarbarorum.com/fact...i_history.html 3 of the nations here have been confirmed so...

[Admiral Piett]

while checking the official site i came across this http://www.europabarbarorum.com/fact...i_history.html 3 of the nations here have been confirmed so...

You may not have read the top part of that. These are mere examples of the individual Eleutheroi they have represented in EB1. These aren't separate factions. The fact that Pergamon and Nabateae were later announced as factions is because they were deemed important enough.

[Xerrop]

while checking the official site i came across this http://www.europabarbarorum.com/fact...i_history.html 3 of the nations here have been confirmed so...

Well yes, but the only remaining faction having a chance to be in would be the Belgae.
I doubt that they will choose the Scythians as they would be too near to the Bosporus Greeks and one of the three other northern African factions beside Massylia will not make it also probably.

What I found curious when reading this texts long ago, was that half of the factions named there are located in northwestern Africa. The guys researching this area were nearly the only ones taking care of the Eleutheroi history section.

very good post except the last part where you lost your patience and all your well written words and diplomacy vanished...

You mean the boring and same as all others-part? That was only my personal own opinion. All those greek areas I use as expansion areas for my Greek-Cities campaigns and it would also feel ahistorical to me when conquering large parts of Gaul or Iberia as Massalia.

When playing the Koinon Hellenon in EB1 I always created a Sea-Empire by conquering Sicily, Massalia, Emporion, Byzantion, Trapezunt, the Crim Peninsular and other greek areas of influence. But I stayed away from conquering large lands around these port cities.

Then I tried to hold them and built up the economy instead of going strict to fulfill the victory conditions. I always attempted to create a power-balance by stopping strong factions becoming too dominant. E.g. supporting the Romans by weakening the Lusotanni, invading Egypt (Alexandreia and Memphis) or Carthage (by destroying their capital city and Atiqa). But I seldom hold these territories only burned them down to give their enemies some chances. Something between a relaxed conquest campaign and an observation campaign (but only to some small extent as I always try to stop too strong factions).

[Casual Tactician]

When playing the Koinon Hellenon in EB1 I always created a Sea-Empire by conquering Sicily, Massalia, Emporion, Byzantion, Trapezunt, the Crim Peninsular and other greek areas of influence. But I stayed away from conquering large lands around these port cities.

That's more or less exactly my approach when playing them too. The KH offer a good variety of troops, both regional and factional, in these provinces... I love the Syracusian and Massilian hoplites - and the Thureopherontes Toxotai with their good range, armour and melee capability (0.225-longswords!).

I'm looking forward to playing them in EBII as, amongst other things, the M2 engine offers the possibility to have separate/increased movement points for ships only (ie. without increasing land-army movement points). That will make managing a KH sea-empire easier (and more realistic)... On the one or other occasion I had quite some trouble shiping relief armies to besieged settlements in time.

[Señor Foliage]

I have a feeling the EB team's gonna release a Belgae confirmation and preview soon (pure speculation). The Belgae fit every category the EB team sets and quite frankly I can't think of another possible faction except maybe Celtiberian. I would also personally like to see an Ethiopian faction but I'm not sure if that's accurate. Anyone know?

[Casual Tactician]

The Belgae fit every category the EB team sets and quite frankly I can't think of another possible faction except maybe Celtiberian.

Just from looking at the campaign map and from a gameplay point of view, a further faction in Iberia wouldn't be a bad choice.

A Belgae or Celto-Germanic faction would be ok and a good deal, but it's not totally necessary imho. Pritanoi, Sweboz, Arverni, Aedui, Boii, Lugiones - their far more than I ever expected in that area of the map. Iberia first, then other regions, if you'd ask me...

[Xerrop]

Just from looking at the campaign map and from a gameplay point of view, a further faction in Iberia wouldn't be a bad choice ...

From looking on the campaign map and thinking about the six great powers of the Hellenistic era there are further African factions missing. Europe and Asia got more factions compared to vanilla Rome:Total War (at the moment +4 for Europe and +6 for Asia thanks to the larger map area). But Africa had even one faction less in the first EB while the previewed Numidians (Massylia) only raise the counter to +/- 0 compared to RTW.

Also from a gameplay point of view you can argue for more focus there. While the European (Rome, Macedon) and Asian (Seleucid, Parthia) Empires have to face different enemies in all directions North, South, East and West, the two african powers (Carthage, Egypt) are greatly secure in their homelands. Ideally there should be atleast a libyan faction between the two great powers and another faction south to Egypt. Same as Massylia to the Carthagians.

edit:
and of course the second Iberian faction - now the three still missing factions (and all ten new factions added over EB 1) would be fair distributed over the whole campaign map.
But "nomen est omen" (as the mod is called Europa Barbarorum - and the ancient tribes there are better known and explored), there is also a high chance that all three missing factions could be European ones ...

[Iosias]

I'm a fan of having a few different Greek factions. I never really liked the idea of the "Greek Cities" back in RTW to represent the various independent Greek states. I highly enjoyed playing RTR VII's Greek factions, just because they were smaller and you were fighting with 2 or 3 other factions for the few settlements in the area. It felt a bit more like.. total war!

I realize its a totally different mod. I only bring it up because it is set in the same time period as this mod, despite being for RTW. Just my two cents!

Sorry, just to clarify, I am aware that the team has already stated they wont be making different Greek polis factions. Just throwing in my opinion!

[Xerrop]

I'm a fan of having a few different Greek factions. I never really liked the idea of the "Greek Cities" back in RTW to represent the various independent Greek states. I highly enjoyed playing RTR VII's Greek factions, just because they were smaller and you were fighting with 2 or 3 other factions for the few settlements in the area. It felt a bit more like.. total war!

Well in RTR VII it is easily possible to include all the major greek medium powers thanks to the smaller area featured. But in mods with larger scope and territories til India you have to distribute the factions all over the map. And in EB Sparta, the Aetolian and Achaean League posses only one province and they are also bordering each other. This does not left any room for expansion without defeating other factions in one single battle.

edit: even in EB2 you will face three other factions soon when playing a western greek faction. Epeiros, Macedon, Koinon Hellenon and the new faction Pergamon will soon start a total war against each other as they have nearly no rebell territories between them. It will for sure not end as a boring place in the EB2 campaigns. Instead it will trigger also a Total War soon!

[bobbin]

Our Greek faction is based on a real alliance, it is just as historical as either of those leagues.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Our Greek faction is based on a real alliance, it is just as historical as either of those leagues.

Very true, but very short lived. And also included eight other polies and Ptolemy II.
The Achaean and Aetolian leagues mentioned above had significant roles to play in the coming centuries.

[Visarion]

yes I agree with Demetrius... Achean League would have been a better choice...

[Gromit]

yes I agree with Demetrius... Achean League would have been a better choice...

Perhaps from a historical perspective but not from a gameplay one, the Achean league would leave Athens and Sparta as rebel controlled and would start as a tiny, really one-province power (based on the current map. On the other hand the Chreminodean league incorporates the "traditional" Greek City States (arguably desirable from a gameplay perspective) and creates a more competitive faction on the map. I feel portraying the Achean league properly would require adding provinces in Greece to represent the Makedonian, Spartan, and Achean presence on the Peoponnese, and Greece has an excessive number of provinces already for such a small geographic area.

I do agree that the Achean league is perhaps more representative of an expanding faction capable of dominating Greece and expelling the Makedonians at the game's starting point, but the current system makes for a better game.

[hamjam]

I have to disagree that the Achean League would be a better choice. Basically, their territory in 272 was exactly the territory assigned to Macedonia as the province around Corinth, and at the time the Macedonians had a greater control of that region than the Acheans. The Aetolian League would make some sense, but that would be a really weak starting position (they would only have that one region with Delphi) and may not make for good game play (especially if you did not play as them, in which case the ability of Macedon to spread and expand would be artificially and non-historically increased).

I think the KH as constituted does make the most sense at this particular year -- although it is definitely not perfect. However, the alliance between Sparta and Athens at that time period and supported by the Ptolemies was the strongest anti-macedonian power in Hellas at the time. True, it was destroyed fairly quickly and the other two leagues existed long after, but at 272 the Chremonidean league was more important, and things could have gone much differently -- which is what this mod is all about. I would, however, like to see something radically different for KH in EBII -- some sort of complex reforms process like the Ha go through -- which would mirror the shift in the temporary alliance into the dynamic force that it would have had to become in order to survive long term and form an expansionistic empire.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

I have to disagree that the Achean League would be a better choice. Basically, their territory in 272 was exactly the territory assigned to Macedonia as the province around Corinth, and at the time the Macedonians had a greater control of that region than the Acheans. The Aetolian League would make some sense, but that would be a really weak starting position (they would only have that one region with Delphi) and may not make for good game play (especially if you did not play as them, in which case the ability of Macedon to spread and expand would be artificially and non-historically increased).

I think the KH as constituted does make the most sense at this particular year -- although it is definitely not perfect. However, the alliance between Sparta and Athens at that time period and supported by the Ptolemies was the strongest anti-macedonian power in Hellas at the time. True, it was destroyed fairly quickly and the other two leagues existed long after, but at 272 the Chremonidean league was more important, and things could have gone much differently -- which is what this mod is all about. I would, however, like to see something radically different for KH in EBII -- some sort of complex reforms process like the Ha go through -- which would mirror the shift in the temporary alliance into the dynamic force that it would have had to become in order to survive long term and form an expansionistic empire.

You do certainly make a good point, sadly in this hypothetical world in all likelihood the two reinvigorated polis would have probably ended up fighting each other.

[Señor Foliage]

Another Eastern celt faction like the Scordisii would be cool

[Señor Foliage]

Or galatia

[Petroniu]

Even though the Achaean League was an important player in the next centuries of the time span, at the beginning of the campaign the alliance between Sparta, Athens and Ptolemy II was of greater importance. Even though players like realism to be there in all their campaigns, the truth is that after you start playing and end the turn once, you altered the "history" of the game. From that premise, nothing says that in this alternate "history" that you created the alliance between Sparta and Athens wouldn't have withstood the years and unified the major Greek cities under a greater League that might resemble an empire.

[Stath's]

I, too, 'd like to say that EB team made a very good choice not to include Achaien or Aitoleian League or both, and the reason is, of course, the gameplay. The space in Greece is really small to have so many identical (as far as variety of troops and traits is concerned) factions.

And, if you see it in a historic way, it was very annoying that when "barbarians" made alliances and created strong and large factions, Greeks continued their petty differences and , what is most annoying of all, asked protection from Romans or others.

So, let this be their punishment 2300 years later.

But, to be serious, thanks to EB team, we will have the chance to play and learn about factions that are not so much widely known.

That is what a game needs to be successful, to bring something new into an already great type of gameplay.

[Visarion]

you must have in mind that the Acheans were the only ones to defeat and occupy, integrate, dominate how you want to say... the Spartans...