Page 6 of 76 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415163156 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 1502

Thread: Faction speculation thread

  1. #101

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Cassibellane, I have a hard time understanding what your argument is there.

    The reason the Koinon Hellenon is in is because the Athenian-Spartan alliance, with Ptolemaic backing, quite legitimately hoped to defeat the Antigonids and reverse the authority of Makedonia among the Greek cities. It is not a story of spent states cobbled together, as if we invented their Koinon. As I've said before, the Achaians are out of our timeframe, and the Aitolians are "faction-locked" so to speak. I'm not sure what the questions about Baktria and Pahlava mean, but those are two clearly legitimate factions.

    Re: Barbarians - the views of vpapako are largely the sort of thing that EB was started to address. The "barbarians" didn't look at a wall and stare with glassy eyes, they didn't build their towns of sticks, wattle and daub, and their own feces. Mining and counter-mining are not rudimentary endeavors. Their greatest weakness was in siege machine engineering, which was a weakness for most non-Greek peoples who didn't get Greeks to build machines for them. Just sayin. And yes, central Iberian peoples were building small towns and hillforts with stone walls prior to 272, though the oppida phenomenon doesn't hit full stride across the La Tene world until a century afterwards. That doesn't mean that early forms of large scale defense weren't already in use in isolated cases.

    Re: Hoplites - the nature of Iphikratid hoplite-peltasts is very much up for debate, but you do realize Vpapako, that we have them in EB1, right? Additionally, I suppose you're not aware of our various non-traditional hoplite units, nor of the numerous sources corroborating the persistence of more traditional hoplite phalanxes well into the time period covered by EB. The Spartans experimented with a pike phalanx, but not until the late 3rd century, fifty years after our start date.

    Vpapako, I think you've gotten a rather direct response from Bobbin because you're claiming to speak with a good bit of authority. The way you're using language is as if you're dispensing truth, not engaging in discussion. It's probably a language thing (i'm guessing you're Greek, as opposed to a Classicist).

  2. #102

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Seriously? I implied that I am some sort of expert? And what sort of language should I have used if I didn't want to appear as a "truth dispenser"? Seriously people, chill out. Calma. I mean no offense to anyone, I have no hard feelings towards anyone, I am just making discussion in a speculation thread of a forum. If I have something wrong, please correct me but there is no need for that sort of arguing.

    And I don't remember claiming that barbarians used their own feces as construction material, or anything of the sort. I specifically mentioned siege towers and engineers as what they lacked. I did mention that using stone as a construction material wasn't their favourite building technique in 272 BC.

    As for when the Spartans first used Macedonian phalanx techniques, I did mention King Kleomenes' reforms, didn't I?

    Anyway, I feel I have misused this thread with this last post, so let it be the end of this arguing. I shared my views, team members have shared their reasons for chosing or not chosing a faction, you have my sincere respect and apreciation and good luck with developing the mod.

  3. #103

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by paulus View Post
    Cassibellane, I have a hard time understanding what your argument is there.
    I think that, sometimes, the arguments made for and against the inclusion of factions can appear to be...., contradictory. I'll state again that I have no gripe with whatever choices the EBII team makes, and there are probably many reasons why one faction will be preferred to another - at the end of the day the guys making the mod are the guys putting in the hours and it is their mod, so they don't have to justify themselves and their choices as far as I'm concerned. But....when someone does.... I think its fair to discuss that (and that's all that it is as far as I'm concerned. A discussion. There is no, and I can't emphasise this enough, no griping on my part as to what the eventual factions will be.)

    Quote Originally Posted by paulus View Post
    The reason the Koinon Hellenon is in is because the Athenian-Spartan alliance, with Ptolemaic backing, quite legitimately hoped to defeat the Antigonids and reverse the authority of Makedonia among the Greek cities.
    Well, surely as of 272BC the Lucanians, Brutii, Mesapii and the Samnites might be said to have, quite legitimately, hoped to defeat the Romans and reverse their authority within Italy? In fact, if one were to have begun EB just a few years earlier, they would have had a powerful ally in Epeirus. In both cases their quite legitimate hopes proved false.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulus View Post
    It is not a story of spent states cobbled together, as if we invented their Koinon.
    I don't think anybody is suggesting you have invented the KH, I think simply that the arguments for their inclusion seem to fly in the face of the arguments against including other factions. Did Syracuse not have quite legitimate hopes of overthrowing the Carthaginians in Sicily?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulus View Post
    As I've said before, the Achaians are out of our timeframe, and the Aitolians are "faction-locked" so to speak. I'm not sure what the questions about Baktria and Pahlava mean, but those are two clearly legitimate factions.
    You say that the Achaeans are out of EB's timeframe, and then wonder about why I brought up Baktria and Pahlava? Baktria rebelled from Seleucid control sometime around 256BC. The first attested Strategos of the Achaean league was Margos, who served that role from.... 256BC. So, the Achaean League is outside of the EB timeframe, but Baktria isn't? And Parthia didn't rebel from the Seleucids until 247BC. Yes, of course an EB in this timeframe without Pahlava and Baktria would be missing absolutely vital factions; I'm certainly not arguing that either should be removed. The point here is that a combination of arguments is being used to advocate the KH above other Greek factions that don't actually make sense. The Achaean League would be a stronger, more historical faction, imo, than the KH. That they came a little later than the EB start date cannot really be used as an argument because two of the major factions of EB start either at the same time or after it.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulus View Post
    Re: Barbarians - the views of vpapako are largely the sort of thing that EB was started to address. The "barbarians" didn't look at a wall and stare with glassy eyes, they didn't build their towns of sticks, wattle and daub, and their own feces. Mining and counter-mining are not rudimentary endeavors.
    Oh, I agree with this. BUT, they would - given their lack of siege engineering - have generally not been very successful in their endeavours against well-fortified towns. I certainly don't believe they were stupid, savage barbarians (well, maybe a bit savage, but most everyone was...)...just that their martial habits were not built around besieging cities.

  4. #104

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    @ Cassibellane:
    Whatever I meant to argue in this thread you have covered in this last post. Maybe I'm not expressing correctly...

  5. #105

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassibellane View Post
    You say that the Achaeans are out of EB's timeframe, and then wonder about why I brought up Baktria and Pahlava? Baktria rebelled from Seleucid control sometime around 256BC. The first attested Strategos of the Achaean league was Margos, who served that role from.... 256BC. So, the Achaean League is outside of the EB timeframe, but Baktria isn't? And Parthia didn't rebel from the Seleucids until 247BC. Yes, of course an EB in this timeframe without Pahlava and Baktria would be missing absolutely vital factions; I'm certainly not arguing that either should be removed. The point here is that a combination of arguments is being used to advocate the KH above other Greek factions that don't actually make sense. The Achaean League would be a stronger, more historical faction, imo, than the KH. That they came a little later than the EB start date cannot really be used as an argument because two of the major factions of EB start either at the same time or after it.
    Both Baktria and Pahlava exist as factional entities at our start date, the fact of their diplomatic relations to Seleukeia do not lessen their political weight as powers in their own right, and their endeavours afterwards are such that their exclusion would misrepresent the power of Arche Seleukeia in the east. The Achaeans also exist at our start date, however their status at that time (both on the map and as an historical entity) does not warrant their inclusion, and their exclusion would not misrepresent the Greek City states or the power of the Makedonians (at a later stage) over those areas.

    However, it would also be remiss of us to not, in some way, give the player the option to play as these old masters of the ancient world (I'm sure we would have a lot of fans up in arms). We cannot possibly realistically represent the military might of an individual city and make it playable. If we could we would want to give the player the oppurtunity of playing as one of the cities and creating their own alliances amongst their neighbours, but the diplomatic engine does not allow for such a state of affairs. So instead we have to use an already existing alliance, and allow players to play as three, allied city-states from the get go.

    Now the nature of the engine in EBI did not allow us to represent this faction properly, that is admitted quite easily. They played, pretty much, as any other faction and that was, of course, unrealistic. In EBII, thanks to an improved engine, we won't suffer from the same problems and the KH won't begin and end as the same faction - the exact nature of the faction will change depending on the players actions. Keeping the alliance together may well involve engineering a war against a peaceful neighbour, or you may instead rely on keeping the number of cities in the alliance small to ensure that the generals and their city-states stay loyal to the cause. Or in other words, unlike other factions, the KH will become more uncontrollable the more successful you are. Unless, of course, you decide to change the nature of the faction itself.

    In conclusion: you say the examples of Baktria and Pahlava are synomomous with the case of the Achaean League; we argue that it is not. We argue that the Achaean League is neither necessary for the correct representation of its area, not sufficient in its existence in 272 to warrant its inclusion. Baktria and Pahlava were significant political entities long before their annexation from Arche Seleukeia (there is a long history showing how independent some of these Satrapies, and particularly Baktira, could be).

    In return we also argue that, given the limitations of the engine, it was necessary for us, lacking a viable alternative, to use a pre-existing alliance to allow the player to play as the beloved cities of greece.

    Foot
    EBII Mod Leader
    Hayasdan Faction Co-ordinator

  6. #106
    fightermedic's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    756

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by vpapako View Post
    @ Cassibellane:
    Maybe I'm not expressing correctly...
    i dont think so
    just remember that some of the people here (especially the devs) have heard certain discussions many many times (and often enough in a not so nice way of expressing opinions )
    a bit of the problem, i think, exists because so many people (including me) do know so little about what the world in 272 realy was like.. and the EB devs do know quite a bit
    just imagine to be asked by a little child for some sweets... over and over and over, and no matter how hard you try to explain that this will destroy it's teeth it won't stop asking
    so the devs sometimes respond a bit "direct" to childs trying to prove sweets don't hurt their teeth
    the least they expect to prove that statement would be a lifes work of investigation by some nobell-prize-winning scientist before they would take it into consideration
    such is the standard

    well ok now i'm completeley of topic
    nevermind
    oh and EB team.. we love you for that accuracy.. though what just is more knowledge can at times get across as a bit of arrogance

  7. #107

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Foot View Post
    Both Baktria and Pahlava exist as factional entities at our start date, the fact of their diplomatic relations to Seleukeia do not lessen their political weight as powers in their own right, and their endeavours afterwards are such that their exclusion would misrepresent the power of Arche Seleukeia in the east. The Achaeans also exist at our start date, however their status at that time (both on the map and as an historical entity) does not warrant their inclusion, and their exclusion would not misrepresent the Greek City states or the power of the Makedonians (at a later stage) over those areas.

    However, it would also be remiss of us to not, in some way, give the player the option to play as these old masters of the ancient world (I'm sure we would have a lot of fans up in arms). We cannot possibly realistically represent the military might of an individual city and make it playable. If we could we would want to give the player the oppurtunity of playing as one of the cities and creating their own alliances amongst their neighbours, but the diplomatic engine does not allow for such a state of affairs. So instead we have to use an already existing alliance, and allow players to play as three, allied city-states from the get go.

    Now the nature of the engine in EBI did not allow us to represent this faction properly, that is admitted quite easily. They played, pretty much, as any other faction and that was, of course, unrealistic. In EBII, thanks to an improved engine, we won't suffer from the same problems and the KH won't begin and end as the same faction - the exact nature of the faction will change depending on the players actions. Keeping the alliance together may well involve engineering a war against a peaceful neighbour, or you may instead rely on keeping the number of cities in the alliance small to ensure that the generals and their city-states stay loyal to the cause. Or in other words, unlike other factions, the KH will become more uncontrollable the more successful you are. Unless, of course, you decide to change the nature of the faction itself.

    In conclusion: you say the examples of Baktria and Pahlava are synomomous with the case of the Achaean League; we argue that it is not. We argue that the Achaean League is neither necessary for the correct representation of its area, not sufficient in its existence in 272 to warrant its inclusion. Baktria and Pahlava were significant political entities long before their annexation from Arche Seleukeia (there is a long history showing how independent some of these Satrapies, and particularly Baktira, could be).

    In return we also argue that, given the limitations of the engine, it was necessary for us, lacking a viable alternative, to use a pre-existing alliance to allow the player to play as the beloved cities of greece.

    Foot
    Aha..., now that is an answer I can fully accept. You have given a clear and concise conjunction of conditions that make sense (you are right that one city state which allies with many other, small, city-states cannot be compared with such as the Satrapy of bactria). What's more, the way you have described it I'm looking forward to an EBII KH campaign to see how you've managed the faction.

    Kudos.

  8. #108
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by vpapako View Post
    And I don't remember claiming that barbarians used their own feces as construction material, or anything of the sort. I specifically mentioned siege towers and engineers as what they lacked. I did mention that using stone as a construction material wasn't their favourite building technique in 272 BC.
    He was just exaggerating with that last bit, he wasn't claiming you actually said that.

    Sorry for coming across a bit blunt with my reply, it was this bit that set me off.
    Quote Originally Posted by vpapako View Post
    The barbarians in Spain didn't even build stone walls at that time. They built everything out fo wood.
    This came across as a statement of fact rather than a opinion, but like Paullus said it is probably a language gap problem so I apologise again for being a bit rude in my reply.

    As for when the Spartans first used Macedonian phalanx techniques, I did mention King Kleomenes' reforms, didn't I?
    Regarding this, the way you originally mentioned them was in relation to what you thought was an unrealistic representation of how the Greeks fought, the implication was that Sarissa wielding soldiers should be part of the KH army. I was pointing out that they already were in EB and that they come in at roughly the correct time (Kleomenes III reign started in 235BC)

    Anyway, I feel I have misused this thread with this last post, so let it be the end of this arguing. I shared my views, team members have shared their reasons for chosing or not chosing a faction, you have my sincere respect and apreciation and good luck with developing the mod.
    Thank you! We hope that when EBII is released you enjoy playing it, on a personal note I hope my replies won't discourage you from posting here again.


  9. #109
    Duke Jester's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Confirmed old factions*:
    - Aedui
    - Arche Seleukeia
    - Arverni
    - Baktria
    - Carthage
    - Epeiros
    - Getai
    - Hayasdan
    - Koion Hellenon
    - Lusotana
    - Makedonia
    - Pahlava
    - Pritanoi (formerly Casse)
    - Ptolemaioi
    - Pontos
    - Romans
    - Saba
    - Saka Rauka
    - Sauromatae
    - Sweboz
    * the 20 factions from EB1; only listed for the sake of completeness and twc-members not familiar with EB1

    Confirmed new factions:
    - Boii
    - Bosphorus Kingdom
    - Massylia
    - Pergamon

    Hot Contenders:
    - A second Iberian faction

    Most likely ruled out:
    - Galatia
    - An "Illyrian" faction
    - Achaean league
    - Aetolian league

    Definitively ruled out:
    - Massalia


    What is the latest state on factions included in EBII? Can anyone correct, verify or extend the categories "Confirmed new factions", "Hot Contenders", "Most likely ruled out" and "Definitively ruled out". I would be happy to get an up to date list (as far as possible).

    Thanks!

  10. #110

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbin View Post
    Thank you! We hope that when EBII is released you enjoy playing it, on a personal note I hope my replies won't discourage you from posting here again.
    No, don't worry about that. I was a bit on edge as well. Take care.

  11. #111
    Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    175

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Awesome post, Duke. To further fill out the list, I recently read a comment by a team member that there would not be another Numidian faction (that is, no Masaesyli), due to the region being too crowded. I suppose their unit roster would be identical to their rival neighbors to the east, anyhow.

    I think we can put a Belgae confederation in the Hot Contenders list. I've never seen a team member make any "negative" comments toward the mention of a Belgic faction.

  12. #112

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    You can add Caledonia to the "definitely ruled out" category. Also the second or third Roman faction. People do like to ask about these.

  13. #113
    InfantryToddler's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    third large potato-nodular-like lump in our solar system... or the matrix?!?
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by vpapako View Post
    No, don't worry about that. I was a bit on edge as well. Take care.
    Is bobbin going on a dangerous expedition? Good luck and come back unharmed - so you can continue working on EBII (and of course I hope you are well for your own personal reasons ).

    @ Duke, and back on topic:

    - Syracuse seems pretty much ruled out, I guess (not sure though).
    - the Scordiscii might be hot contenders for a faction slot (as buffer for Romans and Epirus, and to fill up the north-western balkan, apart from being an interesting faction in itself)
    'He was the sort of person who stood on mountaintops during thunderstorms in wet copper armour shouting "All the Gods are bastards."' - Terry Pratchett


  14. #114
    Duke Jester's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    I thought I might just update the list again (and maybe will continue to do so, if new factions are confirmed or ruled out in further posts).

    Confirmed old factions*:
    1 - Aedui
    2 - Arche Seleukeia
    3 - Arverni
    4 - Baktria
    5 - Carthage
    6 - Epeiros
    7 - Getai
    8 - Hayasdan
    9 - Koion Hellenon
    10 - Lusotana
    11 - Makedonia
    12 - Pahlava
    13 - Pritanoi, formerly Casse
    14 - Ptolemaioi
    15 - Pontos
    16 - Romans
    17 - Saba
    18 - Saka Rauka
    19 - Sauromatae
    20 - Sweboz
    * the 20 factions from EB1; only listed for the sake of completeness and twc-members not familiar with EB1

    Confirmed new factions:
    21 - Boii
    22 - Bosphorus Kingdom
    23 - Massylia
    24 - Pergamom

    Hot Contenders:

    - A second Iberian faction
    - Belgae confederation
    - Scordiscii

    Most likely ruled out:
    - An "Illyrian" faction
    - Galatia
    - Achaean league
    - Aitoloian league
    - Masaesyli
    - Syracuse

    Definitively ruled out:
    - Massalia
    - a Caledonian or further "British" faction [besides the Pritanoi]
    - further Italic factions [besides the Romans]

    ----------------------------------

    What is the latest state on factions included in EBII? Can anyone correct, verify or extend the categories "Confirmed new factions", "Hot Contenders", "Most likely ruled out" and "Definitively ruled out". I would be happy to get an up to date list (as far as possible).

    Thanks!

    Edit: THX guys!
    Last edited by Duke Jester; August 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM.

  15. #115
    Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    175

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Kyrene is also ruled out. BTW Foot, great post!

  16. #116
    Duke Jester's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by B_Ray View Post
    Kyrene is also ruled out. BTW Foot, great post!
    I thought I might just update the list again (and maybe will continue to do so, if new factions are confirmed or ruled out in further posts).

    Confirmed old factions*:
    1 - Aedui
    2 - Arche Seleukeia
    3 - Arverni
    4 - Baktria
    5 - Carthage
    6 - Epeiros
    7 - Getai
    8 - Hayasdan
    9 - Koion Hellenon
    10 - Lusotana
    11 - Makedonia
    12 - Pahlava
    13 - Pritanoi, formerly Casse
    14 - Ptolemaioi
    15 - Pontos
    16 - Romans
    17 - Saba
    18 - Saka Rauka
    19 - Sauromatae
    20 - Sweboz
    * the 20 factions from EB1; only listed for the sake of completeness and twc-members not familiar with EB1

    Confirmed new factions:
    21 - Boii
    22 - Bosphorus Kingdom
    23 - Massylia
    24 - Pergamom

    Hot Contenders:

    - A second Iberian faction
    - Belgae confederation
    - Scordiscii

    Most likely ruled out:
    - An "Illyrian" faction
    - Galatia
    - Achaean league
    - Aitoloian league
    - Masaesyli
    - Syracuse

    Definitively ruled out:
    - Massalia
    - a Caledonian or further "British" faction [besides the Pritanoi]
    - further Italic factions [besides the Romans]
    - Kyrene

    ----------------------------------

    What is the latest state on factions included in EBII? Can anyone correct, verify or extend the categories "Confirmed new factions", "Hot Contenders", "Most likely ruled out" and "Definitively ruled out". I would be happy to get an up to date list (as far as possible).

    Thanks!

    Edit: THX guys!

  17. #117
    fightermedic's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    756

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    cimbri wont be in
    bastarnae very likely to be included as of moros (yes i know.. moros post... so not sure how likley)

  18. #118

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by fightermedic View Post
    cimbri wont be in
    bastarnae very likely to be included as of moros (yes i know.. moros post... so not sure how likley)
    Bastarnae are most likely, if not totally, ruled out by Moros and others of the team.

  19. #119
    Duke Jester's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    Quote Originally Posted by fightermedic View Post
    cimbri wont be in
    bastarnae very likely to be included as of moros (yes i know.. moros post... so not sure how likley)
    I thought I might just update the list again (and maybe will continue to do so, if new factions are confirmed or ruled out in further posts).

    Confirmed old factions*:
    1 - Aedui
    2 - Arche Seleukeia
    3 - Arverni
    4 - Baktria
    5 - Carthage
    6 - Epeiros
    7 - Getai
    8 - Hayasdan
    9 - Koion Hellenon
    10 - Lusotana
    11 - Makedonia
    12 - Pahlava
    13 - Pritanoi, formerly Casse
    14 - Ptolemaioi
    15 - Pontos
    16 - Romans
    17 - Saba
    18 - Saka Rauka
    19 - Sauromatae
    20 - Sweboz
    * the 20 factions from EB1; only listed for the sake of completeness and twc-members not familiar with EB1

    Confirmed new factions:
    21 - Boii
    22 - Bosphorus Kingdom
    23 - Massylia
    24 - Pergamom

    Hot Contenders:

    - A second Iberian faction
    - Belgae confederation
    - Scordiscii

    Most likely ruled out:
    - An "Illyrian" faction
    - Galatia
    - Achaean league
    - Aitoloian league
    - Masaesyli
    - Syracuse
    - Cimbri
    - Bastarnae

    Definitively ruled out:
    - Massalia
    - a Caledonian or further "British" faction [besides the Pritanoi]
    - further Italic factions [besides the Romans]
    - Kyrene

    ----------------------------------

    What is the latest state on factions included in EBII? Can anyone correct, verify or extend the categories "Confirmed new factions", "Hot Contenders", "Most likely ruled out" and "Definitively ruled out". I would be happy to get an up to date list (as far as possible).

    Thanks!

    Edit: THX guys! @ fightermedic & Mediolanicus !
    Last edited by Duke Jester; August 27, 2010 at 03:13 PM.

  20. #120

    Default Re: Faction speculation thread

    This is a very fun game, Duke!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •