Faction Ideas

[Zarax]

Well, we are at crossroads here it seems...

Minor factions seems uninteresting, celtic ones are difficult to portray differently than vanilla and adding new hellenistic factions seems unappealing...

The big question is: where do we want to go today?

[Hippias]

Well, we are at crossroads here it seems...

Minor factions seems uninteresting, celtic ones are difficult to portray differently than vanilla and adding new hellenistic factions seems unappealing...

The big question is: where do we want to go today?

Gameplay first while avoiding a-historical atrocities.

e.g. only 1 steppe faction needed, as it is the hardest campaign and two would nullify each other.

A Sabean faction, as it fills a potentially very interesting part of the map -if EB have one then the historical precedent is good enough for me.

Agreed that Gaul + Celts would be very similar, but when you get right down to it all the Hellenic factions are very similar. the only real faction differences in the whole game are "barbarians", horse archers, hellenic spear/pike and roman sword/pilum, with Carthage as a splendid mixture of most.

Dacians, Thracians, Bosphorans, sub-Danube Celts, Ligurians - I think the area needs two factions to run between the Dardanells and the Pyrennes - keeping rome away from Gaul & Germany until later in the game - what the two are, i don't mind. For me - Independent Celts, using Zarax's and EB's "celto-hoplites" for a base + Getai Dacians. Just my two denarii.

If it's not broke - don't fix it. I trust you guys to come up with a winning future to this most reliable of mods (and lets face it I will stick with it whatever the final set up is

[Scutarii]

I find the two (or perhaps three) steppe factions idea interesting. Other mods have done it, (Roma Surrectum being an example), and the 2 factions could the Bosphorans, the sarmatians and the Scythians. They are all very differing civilizations, the scythians being Greco-Barbaric, the Sarmatians being what the Scythians are currently (Barbarian) and the Bosphorans being civilized. And add a few settlements up there wouldn't hurt. If no other great idea comes up, it is a viable option (at least to me, but I'm no modder).

[Zarax]

Bosphorans or massiliotes would make a nice addition plus they have never been done before AFAIK...

[DimeBagHo]

I think in the next version I will add two provincial campaigns - the GCS as Epirus and the GCS as Massilia. With the new locations, existing AOR units, and maybe some new ones like Taratine Cavalry and Massilian Hoplites, they should be interesting and difficult campaigns.

I'm going to take a serious look at the Sabaeans. With the Numidians gone it would be nice to have another desert faction, and between Arab, Bedouin, Persian, and Greek influences I think we could come up with a better unit roster than the Numidians had.

[DimeBagHo]

Some info on the Sabaeans:

http://www.perishednations.com/article1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans

Not much in the way of info about their military, except that they defeated a Roman expedition in 24 BC.

[Zarax]

Just use the EB roster as referral, actually you might even use the numidians as base (the roster is almost the same for unit types), change names and give the models an eastern look (just use sparabara as base model and it will be fine)

Tentative roster:

Sabean spearmen - just sparabara with better morale
Sabean light cavalry - similar to numidians
The various desert AOR/mercenaries
Ethiopian axemen and ethiopian agema in africa
Sabean Temple guards (basically imitation legionaries with thureos and chain mail)
Elephants in africa

[DimeBagHo]

I see the EB guys were pretty down on the idea of giving them camel units. Personally I have no problem with it - in fact it hardly seems worth the effort of making a desert faction if they can't have camels.

For cavalry I think light and heavy javelin/sword units, light and heavy camel archers (Cataphract Camels seem like a bit of a stretch though). Elephants seem reasonable, as it seems just about everyone in the east who had access to them used them (except the Parthians apparently).

Chariots are possible - they certainly used them well before the game period, so it's not that much of a stretch to have them still available.

For infantry there was some speculation on the EB forums that combined melee/archer units were popular in the region. That strikes me as a good excuse to give them two handed axe/archer units. Otherwise we can make up their infantry roster from the usual spear/javelin, sword/javelin options.

[Hippias]

Any possibilities from the BI Berber faction? There is a one handed axeman there that is close to the Red Sea unit in the EB line-up.

I agree on camels - sometimes (like druids for the gauls and female scythians) you just have to go with something that 'feels right' (without going down the route of the vanilla RTW Egyptians.

So the scythians weren't a big issue to the western world? Just think of them as earlier versions of the Huns or Mongols - they bloody were and you as the player could be as them to the early romans.

Same with the Sabeans - in the sword/spear/bow era was their any sort of faction that started in Arabia and overran 2/3 of the XGM map...let me think?????

[][Xyphos][ - Lee]

What about Atlantis........ lol joking, on a serious note i dont no if its historically acurate at the time but what about a the Hittite empire, i no they were skillfull with chairots (sorry if this sounds stupied, im not really sure about all this).

[Zarax]

Hmm, hittites are almost a thousand years outdated... They were more or less where the seleucids are in game.

[][Xyphos][ - Lee]

ah right ok yeah forget about that then lol, i'll post i think of anything else

[Archbaker]

A Gaul Rebel faction could be interesting. I imagine it being very spread out from game start similar to the Independent Greeks. However, I would rather see more regional AOR troops for the Gauls (Averni troops in Averni lands, British troops in British lands, Celt-Iberians in Iberia) than make separate factions for all the Celtic tribes.

The Roman rebel faction I think ought to stay due to the many civil wars in Roman history. In the early game it would represent rebellion other Italic nations (whether Roman associates or entirely independent) and in the late game it would represent civil strife within the empire, and it sounds like DimeBagHo has ideas for a civil war.

The Independent Greek faction works well. It nicely represents the fact that Greece was by no means a unified nation without needing a separate slot for every polis or league. It also occupies both Greeks and Romans early in the game, and leaves some Hellenised colonies for the other Hellenic factions to conquer late in the game.

I haven't tried a game with Baktria enabled yet, but it sounds a little more interesting than just Seleucid rebels, especially if you can add some more non-Hellenic units to that faction.

Ptolemaic and Carthaginian rebels I find add less both in terms of gameplay and historical accuracy. The Greeks and the Gauls were never unified, but Egypt and Carthage was. And I do realise that they saw uprisings, but I could still take them or leave them.

[Zarax]

Carthaginian rebels could be seen as the anti-barcid party in Carthage initially and later as the rebellion of subjected allies tribes (numidians and iberians historically)...

Ptolemaic rebels could also be seen as native, non hellenic rebels trying to oust the foreign ruling class.

[LucretiusTC]

Here´s some comments about those various Faction ideas.

If and when we gave up both the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid Rebel Factions then those Sabaens could represent the new kind of southern challenge to both of those Empires in the later game. Cyrenaica could be one of those Independent Greek States with a little addition of Egyptian troops and a big enough garrison that the Ptolemies had to see some effort before they can expand to that direction. Those new map arrangentments in Africa should prevent too early conficts between Carthage and the Ptolemies.

If and when the Sabaens manage to conquer other settlements in Arabia and southside of Egypt that could create an interesting situation in that area and also affect in Syria and Mesopotamia. It would be good idea to have little more action in that region what the ancient Romans called Arabia Felix. It´s a little bit pity that the famous Queen of Saba lived in the whole other era...

The other obvious area for the possible new Faction is that large area between the Adriatic Sea and Black Sea. That Thracians/Dacians question.
I am sure you guys find some kind of creative solution there that works together with the gameplay, balance, historical facts and philosophical speculations.

Besides those Faction speculations how about adding some new settlements in some of the key battle areas? For instance Philippi in Macedon could nicely fill the area between Pella, Byzantium and Sethopolis, or Iconium in Lycaonia or some other settlement in Asia Minor or one further settlement in Illyria-Pannonia area. I am just a player, so I don´t know how much fixing those map changes would require. Besides I think it is important to develop those various Factions and areas in the equal measures like it has been done so far. No complaints about that. Just keep up with the good work..

Luc.

[DimeBagHo]

I think the Carthage rebels will stay, mostly because there is a lot of potential for a historically plausible and entertaining civil war there.

As for map changes I do think it would be good if we could cut Euboea and Lesbos. The AI doesn't really know what to do with island regions, and they are the cause of some of the insanely high trade revenues in the Aegean. If we could replace them with mainland regions, especially regions that would give the Macedonians a better base, then that would be great.

Otherwise I like the dea of adding regions around the Black Sea, to improve the trade value of the area.

[Kara Kolyo]

The AI doesn't really know what to do with island regions,

you should tell this to Ponthos - in almost every greek campaign they send armies to Mytilene, i guess the summer on greek islads is nice...
otherwise these two islands indeed make insane trade

[Maraxus]

Otherwise I like the dea of adding regions around the Black Sea, to improve the trade value of the area.

Its not really on the Black Sea but how about Cyzicus? Convert the current Myasia into "Troas" and place the new Myasia between Pergamon and Nicomedia with Cyzicus as it's polis? There's plenty of space in that big juicy gap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyzicus

on a random note, here's a nice page for maps of the period i found the other day.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/fallof...rces_maps.html

[Balikedes]

on a random note, here's a nice page for maps of the period i found the other day.

Thanks for the map Maraxus, this helps me out a lot...+1 rep.

[DimeBagHo]

Maraxus: Thanks for the map links. Cyzicus looks like a good replacement for Mytilene. Amphipolis looks like a good replacement for Chalcis.

Kara Kolyo: Every now and again I see the AI pull off a successful naval invasion. Not often enough though. I am very happy with the way Carthage reinforces its positions in Sicily and Iberia though.