Think for including Asian and Far Eastern factions.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Actually, an Etruscan civilization would be pretty nice to have.

[oshron]

Germans, Eastern Romans, Huns, at al. would come with Part 2, which spans from AD1 to roughly AD 550 or so. Mauryans were only a recent addition to Part 1 after great interest was shown by fans and team mates alike.

what i would personally recommend is that part 2 match the number of civs from part 1, and include some eastern civs (as well as the mayans as the sole representatives of the americas) Edited June 24, 2012 by oshron

[Moros]

1. Because it makes possible to see clash of civs and historical units from different sides of the world that never happened in history
   
2. To gain more audience und participants from the east
   

For me it would:

- give unrealism

- The difficulty of balancing factions, units and technology that are hard to compare because they were so different and had barely (military) contact, even indirect.

- Make it to vague

- make the inclusion of other factions impossible, which did fight and had a lot of contact with out current factions and had a big impact in the area. I'd rather have the possibility to refight many other historical clashes.

-The idea that for unique factions or exotic factions you need to include far away factions is silly.

Note that these factions wouldn't even come into much contact whatever happened in history due to geography, climate and flora of central Asia.

[Kimball]

For me it would:

- give unrealism

- The difficulty of balancing factions, units and technology that are hard to compare because they were so different and had barely (military) contact, even indirect.

- Make it to vague

- make the inclusion of other factions impossible, which did fight and had a lot of contact with out current factions and had a big impact in the area. I'd rather have the possibility to refight many other historical clashes.

-The idea that for unique factions or exotic factions you need to include far away factions is silly.

Note that these factions wouldn't even come into much contact whatever happened in history due to geography, climate and flora of central Asia.

This game does have historical roots. We've done our best to represent factions in the peak of their respective empires. Pitting them against each other in that state alone is unrealistic, but that's part of what makes this game fun.

Likewise, including eastern civilizations is not an attempt to recreate history. It's a channel by which to re-imagine history. What if geographic complications hadn't prevented Rome from wanting to take over the Indian empire (which, it should be noted, is represented in our game several centuries apart from the Roman faction)? This game won't prevent you from recreating history's most famous conflicts, but it will permit you to explore your creativity.

[majapahit]

I thought part 1 was Europe+Mediteranian civs

Part 2 is Asian

Part 3 is American civs?

Edited June 25, 2012 by majapahit

[majapahit]

For me it would:

- give unrealism

- The difficulty of balancing factions, units and technology that are hard to compare because they were so different and had barely (military) contact, even indirect.

- Make it to vague

- make the inclusion of other factions impossible, which did fight and had a lot of contact with out current factions and had a big impact in the area. I'd rather have the possibility to refight many other historical clashes.

-The idea that for unique factions or exotic factions you need to include far away factions is silly.

Note that these factions wouldn't even come into much contact whatever happened in history due to geography, climate and flora of central Asia.

• When historical clashes makes the should be historically losing factions triumphs over the should be victorious isn't that also unrealistic?
  
• Balancing factions are not always a main concern since some people just likes to play because its their favourite civs.
  
• This game may have a historically based campaigns, however many players will also wish an alternative clashes between civs that never happened in history.
  

[feneur]

I thought part 1 was Europe+Mediteranian civs

Part 2 is Asian

Part 3 is American civs?

Part one is the years 500BC-1BC, part two is the years 1AD-500AD Exactly which civs will be included in the end will have to be seen, but the focus/starting point is and have been and will be Rome and the civs it interacted with. That doesn't mean that I'm against including other civs, just that I don't think we should exclude e.g. the Germans for example but include the Mayans or something

[oshron]

I thought part 1 was Europe+Mediteranian civs

Part 2 is Asian

Part 3 is American civs?

ive said it before, but i'll say it again: Parts 1 and 2 should focus on Europe and the Mediterranean, and hypothetical Parts 3 and 4 should focus on other regions, with some european/mediterranean civs as filler, with 1 and 3 focusing on the 500-1bc period, and 2 and 4 focusing on the 1-500ad period

given how the game has evolved since i first proposed that idea, i think it should now be that Part 1 just focuses on "BC" civs, Part 2 on "AD" civs, and a hypothetical part three would include an equal number of BC and AD civs from regions aside from the European & Mediterranean/Greco-Roman World (since the mauryans were known to and encountered by the Greeks, and before the focus was basically just Rome and civilizations that it encountered; previously, i had suggested that the Mauryan Indians be in a hypothetical part 3 because of their geographic distance from Europe/Mediterranean)

the Mayans (who were the major civilization in mesoamerica within 0ad's timespan--with the height of the aztecs and inca being during the middle ages rather than the classical period) would be one of the Part 3 AD civs, perhaps alongside the Yamato period Japanese (which, incidentally, would predate the samurai, so those couldnt be included as a Japanese champion unit, but there should definitely be an editor-only samurai unit for the purposes of scenario design)

altogether, this would mean that there would be 30 civs in all: 15 civs dated to about 500-1bc, and 15 dated to about 1-500ad

Edited June 25, 2012 by oshron

[oshron]

15 civs? what civs could be?

i mean in total. ten 500-1bc civs introduced in Part 1, ten 1-500ad civs in Part 2, and five civs from each of those timespans for a hypothetical Part 3: 10 + 10 + 5 + 5 = 30. didn't you take first grade math class?

you probably already know this, but there's ten civs, i think, that have been set up for Part 1:

1. Achaemenid Persians
   
2. Athenians
   
3. (Brythonic) Celts
   
4. Carthaginians
   
5. Gauls
   
6. Iberians
   
7. Spartans
   
8. Macedonians
   
9. Mauryan Indians
   
10. Republican Romans
    

so it stands to reason that the second pack should have an equal number of civs dating to 1-500ad from roughly the same regions, and perhaps even matching the civilizations themselves in their historical roles and geographic regions. for example...

1. Sassanid Persians/Sarmatians/Parthians
   
2. Eastern/Byzantine Romans
   
3. (Anglo-)Saxons
   
4. Himyar Arabs
   
5. Franks
   
6. Vandals
   
7. Huns
   
8. Goths
   
9. Han Chinese
   
10. Western/Imperial Romans
    

obviously, some of these civs are more desirable than others, so the design team would want to work out what they have the most information on and what would be the best civs to include with respect to the other civs. personally, i would relegate a hypothetical Part 3 to civs that were either encountered by only one of the preceding civs, or which was not encountered at all (like the Japanese or the Mayans)

[wrod]

If u think about it asia did influence europe around then like the huns messing up the romans persains vs greeks etc. I think it would be cool to have asia implimented eventually

[Moros]

Part 1 or a later expansion of part 1 could use Skythians and/or Sarmatians and Parthians as well if you ask me. Numidians, Germanics and Dacians would be nice and logical additions too.

In my opinion they'd make more sense than a Chinese, Japanese faction or an American faction. Would fit in the theme more, just saying.

I'm not complaining or nagging just tossing some ideas around.

[Moros]

i like total war series, the Germanic, Sarmatians. . tribes are planned for second part. The dacians, Numidian are represent into greek and Carthaginian faction.

A shame, they have their place in part 1 as well. Oh well I guess when added to part 2, they'll be easy to mod into part 1.

Also a shame for the Dacians and Numidians not to be really included. As they would give original and fun factions with a great possibilities for unique features.

Especially considering tiny Greece will feature 3 factions, of which two mostly played a minor role, especially in the second part of the timeframe the game is set.

Oh well still gonna enjoy this game without any doubt, I already do. It would have been crazy, even creepy, if every little detail would have been exactly to my liking.

But I just don't have anything else to do but whine on the internet, when I should be finishing of my paper.

[Moros]

the problem my friend is create the models, the asian Han are a team of modders working in these, but numidian and Dacian. needs time

even Seleucid and Ptolomy faction are hard to create for now.

Do they need so many new models? Some units are already there in existing factions right? The Dacians could borrow quite a lot of the celts when it comes to buildings, I'd suppose. But perhaps you're right.

Though if modders are already modding Chinese factions and all, there is less reason to add them in the official game as they'll be there anyway.

i like numidians too or Dacians. but if you think, the romans soldiers are alrady Pre Marians, that you think the Marian and Sulla age are no planned for 1st part

Note I was referring to the change from the hoplite 'Servian' armies to the manipular armies around the end of the fourth century and third century BC. Not the much later Marian reforms, which are relevant to only a 'fraction' of the timeframe. Though I'm not sure what you meant exactly. But that doesn't even matter it was just used to illustrate a point on the relative strengths of the armies, as how I'd ideally see them.

Can't say I don't like what has been made so far. Loving what we have so far!

[oshron]

5+5 what ar that 10 civs 5 for 1pt and 5 for 2pt

[snip]

the civs havent been decided aside from Part 1, i was just giving examples of what they could be, but hypothetical civs for Part 2 that have more or less been confirmed definitively include the Eastern and Western Roman empires as well as the Huns. the official mantra right now, as i understand it, is that nothing will be decided until Part 1's alpha and beta phases are completed and the finished product goes gold, then they'll start work on Part 2 with 1-500ad civs like the later romans and huns

[Moros]

But you can think in Camping mode Chinese interacting with Huns Tribes, for a unknown decision Huns coming to west, destroy everything, crush Gupta Empire in India. and defeat Sarmatins tribes, they create Problem to Persian (Sasanid) Empire and Last try to destroy Roman Empire.

ilke your idea to add]Himyar Arabs to this game, i dont know this faction.

Talking about part 2 then?

Though I suppose you could make your point using the Xiongnu-> Yuézhi->Eastern Scythians/Sakae, Indo-Greeks,...

The Himyar are an interesting faction indeed. A rather unique civilization building upon the old Sabaean legacy, with possibly some Ethiopians in it, and especially at later dates some Jewish influence. They had a sort of professional army (khamis) very early. Light army but archer and spear heavy. Generally camels aren't said to have been part of their armies though, unless as beasts of burden and a way of transport to and off the battlefield, no use for them on the battlefield though. Very cavalry poor though, especially during the early period.

[Moros]

thats right, the last days i say the possibility to use a faction that not use in no one game previously.

Not the best quality of pictorial sources out there on them though.The Desert's Frontier by Ospreys didn't really do a good job depicting them imo, adding a lot of very foreign objects (byzantine helmet for one) to the soldier. But there are quite a lot of usefull inscriptions on their armies. Warfare in Ancient South Arabia: 2nd - 3rd c. AD, A.F.L., Beeston has a large collection of them, but is a bit outdated and some theories have been changed.

[Moros]

Berbers isn't a correct designation for the people in Egypt if you ask me. There was heavy contact with the Ethiopians of Aksum though. Who even invaded South Arabia at some point, but there was even earlier contact due to trade and the likes. Which might also make an interesting faction. Possibly Meroe as well.

Also not a very good map though. Seems based on the ancient ptolemy's map instead of Archaeology. Some settlements are difficult to identify with attested settlements, those that are easier to connect seem placed wrongly. The channel from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean went by the nile, not through the narrowest part between the delta area and the Sinai like today,...

[AllenY]

The Gokturks would be nice, they are sort of European sort of Asian. Had a huge empire, had Mongolia, Caucasus, etc.

[NoMolester]

I think the correct way to decide which factions enter into the game is the following:

Mythos_Lier has said that the roman civilization is "the centre" of the game. Now in order to choose the other factions we should ask: Which civilizations interacted with rome (as antagonists or major allies)? And a gree to a number (lets say 3).

1) the persians

2) the celts

3) the carthaginians

And add them to the game.

Now ask the same for the persians, Which 3 civilizations interacted with persia (as antagonists or major allies)?

1) the romans

2) the mauryans

3)the macedonians

And add them to the game

And then do the same with the celts, carthaginians, etc.

And if you want to add a new civilization, just ask which of the game factions interacted with them, if they are less than 3, you don't add them, else you add them.

The Seleucid?

1) Persians

2) Rome

3) ?

So you either quit the Seleucid or make other 1 other civ that interacted with the Seleucid and with other 2 game civs. For example:

Hellenistic egypt

1) Persians

2) Seleucids

3) Rome

And then you can add the Egyptians to the game and redo the Seleucid "contact" list:

1) Persians

2) Rome

3) ? => Egypt

And add the seleucids too

So every faction will always have at least 3 historically contact factions in the game and you can start moving away from italy to the rest of the world slowly using this criterium.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I think the correct way to decide which factions enter into the game is the following:

Mythos_Lier has said that the roman civilization is "the centre" of the game. Now in order to choose the other factions we should ask: Which civilizations interacted with rome (as antagonists or major allies)? And a gree to a number (lets say 3).

1) the persians

2) the celts

3) the carthaginians

And add them to the game.

Now ask the same for the persians, Which 3 civilizations interacted with persia (as antagonists or major allies)?

1) the romans

2) the mauryans

3)the macedonians

And add them to the game

And then do the same with the celts, carthaginians, etc.

And if you want to add a new civilization, just ask which of the game factions interacted with them, if they are less than 3, you don't add them, else you add them.

The Seleucid?

1) Persians

2) Rome

3) ?

So you either quit the Seleucid or make other 1 other civ that interacted with the Seleucid and with other 2 game civs. For example:

Hellenistic egypt

1) Persians

2) Seleucids

3) Rome

And then you can add the Egyptians to the game and redo the Seleucid "contact" list:

1) Persians

2) Rome

3) ? => Egypt

And add the seleucids too

So every faction will always have at least 3 historically contact factions in the game and you can start moving away from italy to the rest of the world slowly using this criterium.

Ruler XD Mythos_ruler

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I seriously would suggest that there be a 1.5 part myself. The Romans and Carthaginians would have no significant changes, but the Hellenes would be divided into the Achaean League, Aetolian League, Macedonians, Seluecids, and Ptolemies. For part one the Romans could be altered to be more like the kind of unit roster mentioned by Livy (refer to Europa Barbarorum to see what I mean.), and an Etruscan Civilization could be included!

Edited November 30, 2012 by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

[Lion.Kanzen]

I seriously would suggest that there be a 1.5 part myself. The Romans and Carthaginians would have no significant changes, but the Hellenes would be divided into the Acaean League, Aetolian League, Macedonians, Seluecids, and Ptolemies. For part one the Romans could be altered to be more like the kind of unit roster mentioned by Livy (refer to Europa Barbarorum to see what I mean.), and an Etruscan Civilization could be included!

I Agree Roman inone the most forget Civs in game, they dont have new things since Idus of March.