The 2 remaining faction slots

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Which ones? I am just currious.

Atropatene, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Kappadokia, none of which have done much apart from managing to survive for a long time, for example Epeiros would be like them if there was no Pyrrhos, after his death Epirotes didn't do much. For this reason I don't consider any of them is a good faction candidate.

My main problem with inclusion of greek city states faction is that you can choose only one of them. If you for example choose Massalia you can not anymore implement Syracuse,etc.

In my oppinion, cosndiring the number of regions and the scope of the map the EB team made a good decion making generic "greek city states faction" based on Chremonidean League. If the map is centret only on meditarean like in RTR VII than ofcourse ot would make sense to add warious greek faction like Achaean and Aitolian league, Sparta, Athens, Massalia, Syracouse, Kyreneika, etc. However, in the current map scope you just can not add one city state/league faction without neglecting ither with same/similar importance. Therefore is better to have generic greac faction with which player can simulate playing whichever city-state he likes (all you need is just conquere Masslia or Syracuse and let your starting regions get conquered by Macedon.

I agree, having one of the two leagues or a random greek city state would require more provinces and m2tw engine is simply not made in a way to allow that level of detail, even if more provinces were added in Greece.

[svramj]

Some activity in Africa..
Mauretania, Meroe, Aksum

[Zeion]

Two things are to consider, I guess: Gameplay balance, and historical "importance".

From a gameplay standpoint, I think in Illyria there is quite a "vacuum" that could be filled. Also, a competitor to the ptolemys south of egypt could be nice (Aksum).
In both cases, I'm not sure about historical significance though.

Hard for me to tell if its possible, but did you ever consider something like "emergent factions"? I.e. factions that would trigger once a certain region rebels and/or when a faction is defeated.
Something like a persian aristocracy comes to mind. I think it is not unlikely that had the Parthians not integrated those very elements within the seleucid society, that some other persian warlord had build up a major faction in the east.

Another idea could be emergent horde factions like the Yuezhi that spawn later in time and pose a major threat to civilization.

[Genava]

I think it's highly probable we will have a new faction in the balkans. The best candidates are an Illyrian tribe or the Scordisci, a celtic tribe with Thracian, Pannonian and Illyrian mix.

For me, the others strong possibilities are:
- A Belgae tribe to fill the empty space between the Gauls and the Sweboz.
- A caucasian tribe, Karthli or Colchis.
- The kingdom of Meroe.

[doop]

were the veneti around at 270bce?

add some conflict to northern gaul and the british isles

[Vandal666]

I came too late for the vote, but I have always deeply desired to see Syracuse. Illyrian sounds pretty cool too, though, and as my EB games usually go, I can rather see the need for something to stop Epeirus or Macedon just advancing mindlessly into modern Hungary

[alex33]

I came too late for the vote, but I have always deeply desired to see Syracuse. Illyrian sounds pretty cool too, though, and as my EB games usually go, I can rather see the need for something to stop Epeirus or Macedon just advancing mindlessly into modern Hungary

This poll is fanmade so u can vote as long as u want.^^

[Wulfburk]

Ya but i think you need a certain ammount of posts to be able to vote.

[NosPortatArma]

I think Massilia would be a great faction to play as.

The western mediterranean is a bit empty, on the coasts. There are the inland tribes of course, but there's not any mercantile sea powers other than Rome and Carthage in the western mediterranean. The greeks had a presence there historically, but it's not shown in the game. I think Massilia would have a very interesting position for a player. It would be weaker than both Rome and Carthage, and their strategy would have to depend on pitting those two against each other whilst trying to expand and also keeping a low profile. Caught between two much stronger powers, and numerous tribes further inland. I think that's a great and fun challenge for players. Massilia would also take on the role to represent the greeks in the western mediterranean. The were several greek cities there, and they did historically compete with both rome and carthage (corsica). I would just love that challenge, and I think it feels empty and unhistorical to not have that greek presence there.

Much of the above could also be said for syracuse. A strong city, fighting with their nieghbors. But I'd prefer massilia over Syracuse, because the area around massilia is more empty and unrealistically devoid of active greeks. Syracuse didn't really have much of a chance either, being completely caught between rome and carthage. Massilia though, was more on the sidelines. That both carthage and rome would try to advance along that coast wasn't as inevitable as them trying to get sicily.

What do you think? Does Massilia make a strong case gameplay-wise?

[Nimor]

While Syracuse and Massilia would be my favorite additions (I wonder if this makes me hellenophile?) there are already eight hellenic factions in the game and Pontus, Nabatea and perhaps Saka (not sure about this one) become somewhat hellenistic in the lategame. So it seems rather unlikely, especially with the additional provinces in Illyria in 2.1. Plus, the rather large thracian and illyrian rosters make it likely that there will be a new faction in this region later on.
I saw a lots people talk about the Belgae, too. Not my cup of tea, to be true, but if it helps to balance the region up there.

This 30 faction limit can sure be annoying sometimes.

[Trarco]

Massilia would be very fun to play, I think that the "problem" is that Massilia wasn't a real power in the third century B.C. since the city was only a Roman ally and even in Iberia other Greek cities like Athens or Syracuse had much more influence in trading.


However it would be very fun playing as the Phoceans and fight for recover Emporion and Corsica and conquest the Ilergetan tribe and some southern gauls.

[NosPortatArma]

While Syracuse and Massilia would be my favorite additions (I wonder if this makes me hellenophile?) there are already eight hellenic factions in the game and Pontus, Nabatea and perhaps Saka (not sure about this one) become somewhat hellenistic in the lategame. So it seems rather unlikely, especially with the additional provinces in Illyria in 2.1. Plus, the rather large thracian and illyrian rosters make it likely that there will be a new faction in this region later on.
I saw a lots people talk about the Belgae, too. Not my cup of tea, to be true, but if it helps to balance the region up there.

This 30 faction limit can sure be annoying sometimes.

That faction limit sure is annoying indeed. There is of course a very strong case to have the belgae, illyrians, thracians, kushites and all other factions people have named. Ideally, we would have them all.

As for there already being many hellenic factions, does that in itself matter? This time (the start of it atleast) was after all dominated by the greeks, and greek states were numerous, spread out and influential. Is the goal to try to represent as many cultures as possible, or is it to try to show which factions were actually (potentially) active, influential and powerful? I'm not an expert on the history of this, so I don't even know if Massilia was more influential than other candidates. But aside from that, there is the gameplay argument for massilia: it would simply be fun to play.

Massilia would be very fun to play, I think that the "problem" is that Massilia wasn't a real power in the third century B.C. since the city was only a Roman ally and even in Iberia other Greek cities like Athens or Syracuse had much more influence in trading.

However it would be very fun playing as the Phoceans and fight for recover Emporion and Corsica and conquest the Ilergetan tribe and some southern gauls.

Is that so? Was Massilia really less influential than emporion (that's the iberian city you refer to I guess), athens and syracuse? Well, I think what really matters is "local influence". So, even if Athens was more influential than Massilia, they weren't operating in the same area. I mean, the lugiones weren't exactly that influential or powerful compared to other factions, but they were the most influential power in that region, which is why they are a faction in the game. So, by that same logic, Massilia would could be a faction in the northwestern part of the mediterranean. Also, another thing to take into account is the potential power. Historically, Massilia might have been an unimportant actor and simply an ally of rome, but was that inevitable? If Massilia could reasonably have taken another course than it did historically, would it have had the potential to be a minor power, strong enough to be a faction in eb2? I don't know, maybe you historians can answers that.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Is that so? Was Massilia really less influential than emporion (that's the iberian city you refer to I guess), athens and syracuse? Well, I think what really matters is "local influence". So, even if Athens was more influential than Massilia, they weren't operating in the same area. I mean, the lugiones weren't exactly that influential or powerful compared to other factions, but they were the most influential power in that region, which is why they are a faction in the game. So, by that same logic, Massilia would could be a faction in the northwestern part of the mediterranean. Also, another thing to take into account is the potential power. Historically, Massilia might have been an unimportant actor and simply an ally of rome, but was that inevitable? If Massilia could reasonably have taken another course than it did historically, would it have had the potential to be a minor power, strong enough to be a faction in eb2? I don't know, maybe you historians can answers that.

You mention local influence and importance of Massilia in comparison with Athens, Syracuse and Emporion. These two things are the most important detriments to Massilia. EB2 is a game so you can make a Massaliote faction and create a powerful state with them, you could even conquer entire Gaul and Italy but in real life, no alternate historical divergence can make Massalia a city-state that controls anything more than coastal Corsica and few coastal greek towns in liguria and modern day Catalonia, provided that the point of divergance is the start date of EB.

Emporion is much less important that Massilia, despite being an independant city. The population of Athens is dwarfed in comparisom to Syracuse, however Athens had much more income and projected power over the Aegean and Ionia. Both Syracuse and Athens control significant land around them, including numerous other settlements many of whom are of similar size to those few greek towns in Liguria.
In EB2 the province where Syracuse is located was historically more developed and populous than the province where Massalia is located. That entire region was in fact controlled by Syracuse, in contrast Massilia only controlled a tiny fraction of its starting province plus tiny isolated settlements of Rhode in Spain and Agathe western part of the medditeranean coast of Gaul.

Massalia lacked both population and wealth to become a significant power. The only way for Massalia to become a significant power is consolidate the surrounding area around them in Liguria and small part of coastal Gaul like Rome did with Latium several centuries before them. Rome was surrounded with people of identical culture and way of life in Latium and outside italic peoples were similar enough to ensure relatively easy intergration into a cohesive society led by Rome. Massaliotes only have access to a few relatively small greek settlements and are surrounded with people of ligurian/celtic culture and very different political structure based on tribal identity.

In short Massalia lacks population, territory and economy to consolidate their hold on their surrounding non-greek regions. In their starting EB2 province they are significantly outnumbered by indigenous tribes, the city of Massalia is the capital of that province simply because it's the most important settlement there. Syracuse and Athens, both of whom are also not good candidates for EB2 campaign due to several historical limitations, were not only important centers for their starting provinces, but also for the entire Mediterranean.

Massilia would be a fun faction to play, but at EB2 start date and scope of the mod having only 199 land province is not good for accurate accurate representation of massaliote faction. Massalia can only start out as a faction having the entire province where the city is located under its control and that would actually represent Massaliotes more powerful than they ever were. It's simply not plausible for Massalia to be a successful expansionist faction.

[Trarco]

Is that so? Was Massilia really less influential than emporion (that's the iberian city you refer to I guess), athens and syracuse? Well, I think what really matters is "local influence". So, even if Athens was more influential than Massilia, they weren't operating in the same area.

Yes, I refer to the city from the Iberian Peninsula. At the first stage, Massilia had a lot of influence, for example the Greek city had a good trade with several eastern Iberians (there are even some lead letters that show this trade), that is Arse-Sagunto, however since fourth century B.C. Massilia started to lost the influence, for example Emporion was a trade place but the settlement became to a real polis with his own coins in this way, Massilia lost an important "ally", in fact the Phoceans from Massilia founded Rhode near Emporion to recover their influence but they didn't get it. The Attic pottery was the most imported product and the trade routes were the following:

Greek trade: Athens ->Sicily -> Emporion -> Iberian peoples.


Phoenician tarde: Athens -> Carthage -> Ebusus -> Gadir/Abdera/Sexi/Malaka-> Iberian peoples (especially the oretani from Castulo )


During the fourth century B.C. the Attic pottery was very important but after that it disappeared and the local pottery from Ebusus and from Emporion replaced the Attic pottery. As you can see Massilia didn't participate in this phenomenon but the city had good wine and Italy was the objective. So, yes, Emporion and Athens were more influential than Massilia in this case, even (if we believe some literary sources) Emporion was linked with an Iberian city, so there were two communities "in a city", however this Iberian settlement has never been discovered by the archeology.

EDITED: I have spoken with regard to the Iberian Peninsula, for example several northeastern iberians copied the coins of Emporion so Emporion had more cultural influence than Massilia but as a general level Emporion was only a very small city with a limited population, in summary Emporion and Massilia can't be compared, the comparison is like a capital and a little village.

Massilia would could be a faction in the northwestern part of the mediterranean. Also, another thing to take into account is the potential power. Historically, Massilia might have been an unimportant actor and simply an ally of rome, but was that inevitable? If Massilia could reasonably have taken another course than it did historically, would it have had the potential to be a minor power, strong enough to be a faction in eb2? I don't know, maybe you historians can answers that.

This is historical fiction, but the EB2 campaigns are also historical fiction after all, so why not? maybe, if they had been able to get a better position after the Battle of Alalia.

As a personal thought, I would like to play as a democratic expansionist faction from Massilia instead of the historically oligarchy and in this way I would avenge the event of Alalia, and I would create a western Greek league, but I cannot decide if Massilia is a faction and I recognize that is not the better "accurate historical" option but it would be cool.

[NosPortatArma]

You mention local influence and importance of Massilia in comparison with Athens, Syracuse and Emporion. These two things are the most important detriments to Massilia. EB2 is a game so you can make a Massaliote faction and create a powerful state with them, you could even conquer entire Gaul and Italy but in real life, no alternate historical divergence can make Massalia a city-state that controls anything more than coastal Corsica and few coastal greek towns in liguria and modern day Catalonia, provided that the point of divergance is the start date of EB.

Emporion is much less important that Massilia, despite being an independant city. The population of Athens is dwarfed in comparisom to Syracuse, however Athens had much more income and projected power over the Aegean and Ionia. Both Syracuse and Athens control significant land around them, including numerous other settlements many of whom are of similar size to those few greek towns in Liguria.
In EB2 the province where Syracuse is located was historically more developed and populous than the province where Massalia is located. That entire region was in fact controlled by Syracuse, in contrast Massilia only controlled a tiny fraction of its starting province plus tiny isolated settlements of Rhode in Spain and Agathe western part of the medditeranean coast of Gaul.

Massalia lacked both population and wealth to become a significant power. The only way for Massalia to become a significant power is consolidate the surrounding area around them in Liguria and small part of coastal Gaul like Rome did with Latium several centuries before them. Rome was surrounded with people of identical culture and way of life in Latium and outside italic peoples were similar enough to ensure relatively easy intergration into a cohesive society led by Rome. Massaliotes only have access to a few relatively small greek settlements and are surrounded with people of ligurian/celtic culture and very different political structure based on tribal identity.

In short Massalia lacks population, territory and economy to consolidate their hold on their surrounding non-greek regions. In their starting EB2 province they are significantly outnumbered by indigenous tribes, the city of Massalia is the capital of that province simply because it's the most important settlement there. Syracuse and Athens, both of whom are also not good candidates for EB2 campaign due to several historical limitations, were not only important centers for their starting provinces, but also for the entire Mediterranean.

Massilia would be a fun faction to play, but at EB2 start date and scope of the mod having only 199 land province is not good for accurate accurate representation of massaliote faction. Massalia can only start out as a faction having the entire province where the city is located under its control and that would actually represent Massaliotes more powerful than they ever were. It's simply not plausible for Massalia to be a successful expansionist faction.

You make it seem as if that's little. Compared to many other factions that are already in, the potential of Massilia -the coasts from liguria to catalonia plus corsica- is rather big. Compare this potential Massilia to factions like the nabateans, the sabeans, the lugiones, suebi. I'm not an expert in the history of those though, but as far as I know, they didn't manage to control any particularily large areas. We're down to the 28th faction here, so the territorial demands can't be as high. I don't think a comparison to Rome is fair. Rome conquered basically the whole map. Only Rome managed to do that, no other faction could've. Aren't there many factions with just as bad if not worse potential than Massilia in the game already? The 28th faction is going to be a weak faction with no real hope of conquering a big empire, no matter which one we choose. I think liguria to catalonia is a rather good potential empire for a 28th faction.

Yes, I refer to the city from the Iberian Peninsula. At the first stage, Massilia had a lot of influence, for example the Greek city had a good trade with several eastern Iberians (there are even some lead letters that show this trade), that is Arse-Sagunto, however since fourth century B.C. Massilia started to lost the influence, for example Emporion was a trade place but the settlement became to a real polis with his own coins in this way, Massilia lost an important "ally", in fact the Phoceans from Massilia founded Rhode near Emporion to recover their influence but they didn't get it. The Attic pottery was the most imported product and the trade routes were the following:

Greek trade: Athens ->Sicily -> Emporion -> Iberian peoples.

Phoenician tarde: Athens -> Carthage -> Ebusus -> Gadir/Abdera/Sexi/Malaka-> Iberian peoples (especially the oretani from Castulo )

During the fourth century B.C. the Attic pottery was very important but after that it disappeared and the local pottery from Ebusus and from Emporion replaced the Attic pottery. As you can see Massilia didn't participate in this phenomenon but the city had good wine and Italy was the objective. So, yes, Emporion and Athens were more influential than Massilia in this case, even (if we believe some literary sources) Emporion was linked with an Iberian city, so there were two communities "in a city", however this Iberian settlement has never been discovered by the archeology.

EDITED: I have spoken with regard to the Iberian Peninsula, for example several northeastern iberians copied the coins of Emporion so Emporion had more cultural influence than Massilia but as a general level Emporion was only a very small city with a limited population, in summary Emporion and Massilia can't be compared, the comparison is like a capital and a little village.

This is historical fiction, but the EB2 campaigns are also historical fiction after all, so why not? maybe, if they had been able to get a better position after the Battle of Alalia.

As a personal thought, I would like to play as a democratic expansionist faction from Massilia instead of the historically oligarchy and in this way I would avenge the event of Alalia, and I would create a western Greek league, but I cannot decide if Massilia is a faction and I recognize that is not the better "accurate historical" option but it would be cool.

So Massilia is in decline by the time EB2 starts? Is it realistically reversible? Could the influence be regained? I for one like a challenge

[Trarco]

So Massilia is in decline by the time EB2 starts? Is it realistically reversible? Could the influence be regained? I for one like a challenge

Massilia is in decline with respect their past, the phoceans aren't at their peak in the western Mediterranean but Massilia is still an important city, however the city has no interest in expanding their territories through the war after all, Massilia already has power over its local area and that is enough to the greek population and their oligarchy.

The history shows us that they couldn't regain their influence but it could be an enjoyable challenge but in historical fiction .

[alex33]

Compare this potential Massilia to factions like the nabateans, the sabeans

Just to clear that up: While the nabateans start as a nomadic faction at the beginning of the timeframe of eb they rise to prominence during the late hellenistic age. During their whole time the convergence point of many trade routes ( the Incense Route being the most important of them) was petra. Their late kingdom was pretty big (just look at google images) and some historian (don't know the name right now) said that they where the richest people in the world. They also were masterful hydro engineers. Just look where petra is. It's in the middle of the desert. They weere also Hellenized but if you look at the tombs in ancient petra you will find many different influences.
I don't know that much about the saba but the Himyarites who where the late power on the arabian peninsula also styled themselves as kings of saba so they are quite important.
If you want to know about those interesting people look at the eb preview:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Preview-Arabia

[Zeion]

I like the argument of the area being somewhat devoid of hellenistic influence and that Massilia could be an interesting addition to EB2's factions.

I think historical importance should not be the only consideration. Its also important that it adds an enjoyable campaign to the mod (the campaign with that additional faction) and that it has a positive impact on campaigns in general.

Thats where I'm a bit dubious about Massilia. I can see it being an interesting campaign for the player - but I'm not sure how it might impact Rome's progress in that area. Either Massilia gehts swallowed up easily, which would make it somewhat "pointless" (exaggerating) to add them - or it can hold off Rome's advance and therein soaking up lots of its resources. That would also be bad.

Same with Syracuse, actually. Sicily has already three major forces that fight over it... and there are enough problems in terms of passiveness. Not sure how Syracuse would impact that in a positive way. I can see Syracuse slowly taking over the island and then just sitting there...?

I wonder what would happen if Massilia/Syracuse was added to the Greek City States (I can see QS crying out loud here due to the ahistorical-ness of this idea). It might provoke more severe conflicts between Rome and Greece. And as a player, it could offer some interesting choices...
There would have to be restrictions in place to prevent the player to install certain GCS government types in these two colonies to represent their special "status" within the league.

But this is just a random thought.. Take it with a grain of salt.

[NosPortatArma]

I like the argument of the area being somewhat devoid of hellenistic influence and that Massilia could be an interesting addition to EB2's factions.

I think historical importance should not be the only consideration. Its also important that it adds an enjoyable campaign to the mod (the campaign with that additional faction) and that it has a positive impact on campaigns in general.

Thats where I'm a bit dubious about Massilia. I can see it being an interesting campaign for the player - but I'm not sure how it might impact Rome's progress in that area. Either Massilia gehts swallowed up easily, which would make it somewhat "pointless" (exaggerating) to add them - or it can hold off Rome's advance and therein soaking up lots of its resources. That would also be bad.

Same with Syracuse, actually. Sicily has already three major forces that fight over it... and there are enough problems in terms of passiveness. Not sure how Syracuse would impact that in a positive way. I can see Syracuse slowly taking over the island and then just sitting there...?

I wonder what would happen if Massilia/Syracuse was added to the Greek City States (I can see QS crying out loud here due to the ahistorical-ness of this idea). It might provoke more severe conflicts between Rome and Greece. And as a player, it could offer some interesting choices...
There would have to be restrictions in place to prevent the player to install certain GCS government types in these two colonies to represent their special "status" within the league.

But this is just a random thought.. Take it with a grain of salt.

I don't know a great deal about how the AI interacts with other factions, but people have said that an illyrian faction would be good so that it would slow down roman and epirote expansion into illyria, so I think that same logic could be applied to Massilia, ie, as a hinder to Rome. Massilia would of course have to be much weaker than Rome, as it was historically, but that just makes it more fun to play in my view. Also, when I play as Rome, I think it would be nice to have a Massilia faction. It feels empty and wrong that Massilia (and emporion for that matter) is just another rebel city that I'm at war with, and not a city I can trade and ally with. It feels wrong not to see trade routes between my cities and the greek colonies there.

[Genghis Skahn]

I personally think there are already more than enough Hellenistic factions in game at present. There were tons of other prolific and highly independent peoples during this era. EB2 has already added several more Hellenic factions than before, and several non-hellenic factions have reforms that thoroughly Hellenize them(eg. the nabataeans). As well, the KH represent a number of highly independent city states which, while individually not strong enough for a faction, together can be considered as one and somewhat tries to represent the chremonidean league which fought against antigonos gonatas. For the philhellene there is more than enough to sate your hunger, in my perhaps unneeded opinion.

I also think that these last two faction slots should be instead used to demonstrate a new culture and people. I'm sorry, but the Hellenes just weren't the only culturally significant, militarily powerful and technologically advanced culture during this time period. As great a people they were, stretching as far west to the eastern coasts of spain and as far east as baktria and eventually india. Occupying significant portions of coastline around the Mediterranean and black sea, Hellas herself and the bulk of former persian territories, which is a large portion of the map--most of which EB2 factionally demonstrates. Outside these areas, however, areas like the interior of hispania, northern italy, gaul, germania, britain, the furthest southern reaches of the nile, arabia, the baltic etc etc etc. the hellenes have almost no significant populations, military forces or cultural presence there. And to say that: "That's because the Hellenes were too smart to colonize these provinces with harsher climates, they were much better at choosing sites for colonization and etc." is a bit far fetched and prejudice at best.

I also don't think the starting positions of either massalia or syracuse are very good. Especially that of Massalia, that would make the map in that area far too crowded. I've found the very strong eleutheroi presence in eastern spain and massalia's territory are more than enough to demonstrate the independence of the Hellenes in game.

Again, this is just my two cents on the matter.