Empires Besieged possible Factions.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok, I will edit the introduction later.

- Romans : Imperial, Western Romans, Eastern Romans

- Germans: Alemanni, Franks, Saxons, Goths, Dacians

-Middle East factions: Parthian, Sassanids

Hindu: Gupta Empire

steppes tribes: Huns, Roxolani/Alans

1th Century AD

2nd Century AD

3th Century AD

4th Century AD

Edited January 2, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Kushan Empire (Sanskrit: कुषाण राजवंश, Kuṣāṇ Rājavaṃśa; BHS: Guṣāṇa-vaṃśa; Parthian: Kuanxaθr[3]) was an empire in South Asia originally formed in the early 1st century CE under Kujula Kadphises in the territories of ancient Bactria around the Oxus River (Amu Darya), and later based near Kabul, Afghanistan. The Kushans spread from the Kabul River Valley to defeat other Central Asian tribes that had previously conquered parts of the northern central Iranian Plateau once ruled by the Parthians, and reached their peak under the Buddhist emperor Kanishka (127151), whose realm stretched from Turfan in the Tarim Basin to Pataliputra on the Gangetic Plain."

The Kushan dynasty had diplomatic contacts with the Roman Empire, Sassanid Persia and Han China. While much philosophy, art, and science was created within its borders, the only textual record we have of the empire's history today comes from inscriptions and accounts in other languages, particularly Chinese. The Kushan control fragmented into semi-independent kingdoms in the 3rd century CE, which fell to the Sassanians who targeted from the west. In the fourth century, the Guptas, an Indian dynasty also pressed from the east. The last of the Kushan and Sassanian kingdoms were eventually overwhelmed by the Hepthalites(Huns), another Indo-European people from the north.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Romulus]

Very nice. And very historical.

[newcivs]

can we put another celtic faction "pictish tribes", are such as the britons but with strongest calvary and champion units, and very very very very weak infantry, same units of britons, but less armoured

[Lion.Kanzen]

I don't know this is some especulative .

[Mega Mania]

Kushan Empire and Gupta Empire looks promising.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Kushan Empire and Gupta Empire looks promising.

I agree , i was open thinking in you. I know you enjoy like me thinking in a exotic culture that nobody never meet or know.

And other Historical. The Guptas are relate with white Huns. Someday we can appreciate Yamato and Han cultures in the game. And may be early Mayans and other Mesoamerican and southamerican cultures.

[newcivs]

i think that we can add other "bararian faction" Schytians!

- Romans :

*Imperial

*Western Romans

*Eastern Romans "Bizantines"

* Celts:

*Germans

*Alemanni

*Franks

*Saxons

*Goths

* Pictish "britons"

-Middle East factions:

*Parthian

*Sassanids

Hindu: Gupta Empire

* Steppe tribes:

* Alans

* Huns

*Scytians

-"unclasificated"

*Dacians

[oshron]

personally, i think having three different Romans would be superfluous, and that it should be limited to teh Western and Eastern Romans, with "Imperial Romans" capable of being simulated with a combination of the two and some editor-only units

one thing i've suggested numerous times in the past (possibly to the point that it annoys people, and if that's the case i apologize) is that there should be an equal number of civs between each part with Besieged having vague analogies to the Ascendant ones. for example:

1. Anglo-Saxons (to the Britons)
2. Franks (to the Gauls)
3. Eastern Romans (to the Athenians)
4. Huns (to the Spartans)
5. Sassanids (to the Persians)
6. Western Romans (to the Romans)
7. Arabs (to the Ptolemies) (as a note, these would be pre-Islamic Arabs probably from what is now Yemen)
8. Parthians (to the Seleucids)

three other personal suggestions on my part would be the Chinese dating to the Han dynasty (or maybe even three separate Chinese factions based on the Warring States), the Japanese dating to the Yamato period, and the Maya dating to the Classical Period (roughly 200-1000 AD) to add an exotic flavor to a very Indo-European game

[Stan`]

personally, i think having three different Romans would be superfluous, and that it should be limited to teh Western and Eastern Romans, with "Imperial Romans" capable of being simulated with a combination of the two and some editor-only units

one thing i've suggested numerous times in the past (possibly to the point that it annoys people, and if that's the case i apologize) is that there should be an equal number of civs between each part with Besieged having vague analogies to the Ascendant ones. for example:

1. Anglo-Saxons (to the Britons)
2. Franks (to the Gauls)
3. Eastern Romans (to the Athenians)
4. Huns (to the Spartans)
5. Sassanids (to the Persians)
6. Western Romans (to the Romans)
7. Arabs (to the Ptolemies) (as a note, these would be pre-Islamic Arabs probably from what is now Yemen)
8. Parthians (to the Seleucids)

three other personal suggestions on my part would be the Chinese dating to the Han dynasty (or maybe even three separate Chinese factions based on the Warring States), the Japanese dating to the Yamato period, and the Maya dating to the Classical Period (roughly 200-1000 AD) to add an exotic flavor to a very Indo-European game

This sounds good to me. Just, are you sure Franks existed at that time ?

[niektb]

This sounds good to me. Just, are you sure Franks existed at that time ?

Yes, they existed as a German Tribe. (ever played Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion?)

Edited January 28, 2014 by niektb

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Franks (Latin: Franci or gens Francorum) were a confederation of Germanic tribes occupying land in the Lower and Middle Rhine in the 3rd century. Some Franks raided Roman territory, while other Frank tribes joined the Roman troops in what was called Gaul (currently France).

The Salian Franks formed a kingdom on Roman-held soil that, after 357, was acknowledged by the Romans. After the collapse of Rome in the West, the Frankish tribes were united under the Merovingians who succeeded in conquering most of Gaul in the 6th century. The Franks became very powerful after this. The Merovingian dynasty, descendants of the Salians, founded one of the Germanic monarchies which replaced the Western Roman Empire. The Frankish state consolidated its hold over large parts of western Europe by the end of the eighth century, developing into the Carolingian Empire. This empire would gradually evolve into the state of France and the Holy Roman Empire.

[Mythos_Ruler]

It is my opinion that it isn't necessary that Part 2 civs correlate with Part 1 civs. It stretches things quite a bit to say that the Eastern Romans (Early Byzantines) equate with the Athenians in Part 1. If anything, I would have equated them with the Macedonians, but then now we are arguing over something unnecessary. I say just go with the civs that make the most sense from a gameplay and historical POV.

My favored civs right now are:

Culture: Roman

• Imperial Romans of the "5 Good Emperors" era.
  • Struggles with the Germans, Parthians, etc.
  • Rome at its height.

Culture: Greek

• Early Byzantines (Constantine to Justinian, which allows a cool hero like Belisarius)
  • A good foil for the Sassanians if we choose to include them.
  • Some great architecture and unit rosters that will look unique from the Imperial Romans.
  • Can mix many units with Imperial Roman architecture for a "Late Western Rome" civ for Hunnish scenarios.

Culture: German

As a culture, they have weak, but fast-building structures, so they capture territory quickly, but may lose it just as quickly.

• Franks
• Marcomanni or Alemanni? Which would be best?
• Goths

Culture: Steppes Nomad

These as a culture have packing buildings and things like ox carts for dropsites. They also have mighty bonuses in looting and plunder. These civs rely more on cavalry than any other culture.

• Huns
• Sarmatians

Culture: Eastern

• Parthians
• Sassanids
  • ​War elephants.
• Palmyrenes
  • ​A mix of Roman and Eastern units; Roman, Eastern, and Greek architecture.

Culture: Dacian

• Dacians

Culture: Indian

• Guptas
  • ​Not a carbon copy of the Mauryans, the Guptas have strong stone buildings and defenses and no chariots.

The above list would give us 12, like in Part 1. Could be convinced to drop the Palmyrenes for another German faction, but that would seem to overbalance civs toward the German culture.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Kushans links Guptas and Huns. But we have time to proposed a one.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[oshron]

It is my opinion that it isn't necessary that Part 2 civs correlate with Part 1 civs. It stretches things quite a bit to say that the Eastern Romans (Early Byzantines) equate with the Athenians in Part 1. If anything, I would have equated them with the Macedonians, but then now we are arguing over something unnecessary. I say just go with the civs that make the most sense from a gameplay and historical POV.

now that i think about it, i have to say i agree with you. as for my proposals of civ correlation, that's probably the Asperger's talking i like nice, round numbers when it comes to this kind of thing, so i favor a setup where both Ascendant and Besieged have an even 12 civs (or possibly expanded to 15 each, because 13 and 14 are weird ). it used to be that i was for ten civs in each part, with an additional third part featuring "non-Roman" civs like the Chinese because, at that point, all the civs present had been ones that the Romans explicitly encountered (before the Mauryans were introduced as a playable civ). and even with "civ correlation" alot of them are still very much inexact. one of my proposals was to make the Huns the AD equivalent to the BC Spartans because of their militant cultures even though they're different in every other sense. the other sense is that the Besieged civs could/would be spiritual successors to the Ascendant ones

[niektb]

It is my opinion that it isn't necessary that Part 2 civs correlate with Part 1 civs. It stretches things quite a bit to say that the Eastern Romans (Early Byzantines) equate with the Athenians in Part 1. If anything, I would have equated them with the Macedonians, but then now we are arguing over something unnecessary. I say just go with the civs that make the most sense from a gameplay and historical POV.

My favored civs right now are:

Culture: Roman

• Imperial Romans of the "5 Good Emperors" era.
• Struggles with the Germans, Parthians, etc.
• Rome at its height.

Culture: Greek

• Early Byzantines (Constantine to Justinian, which allows a cool hero like Belisarius)
• A good foil for the Sassanians if we choose to include them.
• Some great architecture and unit rosters that will look unique from the Imperial Romans.
• Can mix many units with Imperial Roman architecture for a "Late Western Rome" civ for Hunnish scenarios.

Culture: German

As a culture, they have weak, but fast-building structures, so they capture territory quickly, but may lose it just as quickly.

• Franks
• Marcomanni or Alemanni? Which would be best?
• Goths

Culture: Steppes Nomad

These as a culture have packing buildings and things like ox carts for dropsites. They also have mighty bonuses in looting and plunder. These civs rely more on cavalry than any other culture.

• Huns
• Sarmatians

Culture: Eastern

• Parthians
• Sassanids
  • ​War elephants.
• Palmyrenes
  • ​A mix of Roman and Eastern units; Roman, Eastern, and Greek architecture.

Culture: Dacian

• Dacians

Culture: Indian

• Guptas
• ​Not a carbon copy of the Mauryans, the Guptas have strong stone buildings and defenses and no chariots.

The above list would give us 12, like in Part 1. Could be convinced to drop the Palmyrenes for another German faction, but that would seem to overbalance civs toward the German culture.

How about Saxons, Burgundy or Lombard?

[Lion.Kanzen]

How about Saxons, Burgundy or Lombard?

I Preferd the Saxon the other ones are most for Medieval Age. Lombard invades Italy when Rome(Western) have a Century defeated or fell.

Burgundian(form a kingdom later but not great relevance) and Slavs come later.

Wikipedia.

The Lombards or Langobards (Latin: Langobardī, Italian Longobardi), were a Germanic tribe who ruled Italy from 568 to 774.

The Lombard historian Paul the Deacon wrote in the Historia Langobardorum that the Lombards descended from a small tribe called the Winnili [1] who dwelt in southern Scandinavia[2] (Scadanan) before migrating to seek new lands. In the 1st century AD they formed part of the Suebi, in northwestern Germany. By the end of the 5th century they had moved into the area roughly coinciding with modern Austria north of the Danube river, where they subdued the Heruls and later fought frequent wars with the Gepids. The Lombard king Audoin defeated the Gepid leader Thurisind in 551 or 552; his successor Alboin eventually destroyed the Gepids at the Battle of Asfeld in 567.

Following this victory, Alboin decided to lead his people to Italy, which had become severely depopulated after the long Gothic War (535554) between the Byzantine Empire and the Ostrogothic Kingdom there. The Lombards were joined by numerous Saxons, Heruls, Gepids, Bulgars, Thuringians, and Ostrogoths, and their invasion of Italy was almost unopposed. By late 569 they had conquered all the principal cities north of the Po River except Pavia, which fell in 572. At the same time, they occupied areas in central and southern Italy. They established a Lombard Kingdom in Italy, later named Regnum Italicum ("Kingdom of Italy"), which reached its zenith under the 8th-century ruler Liutprand. In 774, the Kingdom was conquered by the Frankish King Charlemagne and integrated into his Empire. However, Lombard nobles continued to rule parts of the Italian peninsula well into the 11th century when they were conquered by the Normans and added to their County of Sicily. Their legacy is apparent in the regional name, Lombardy.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

[Stan`]

Yes, they existed as a German Tribe. (ever played Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion?)

Oh okay. Goths seems more attractive to me to represent a Germanic faction=)

[Lion.Kanzen]

We have the same with Greeks here, too many Germans factions, for example Goths don't have Francisca skirmish unit. or have the same believes. some were pagans others were Christian, some were most Infantry (Central Europe) other more Cavalry and Archer(Eastern Europe).

[oshron]

going back to civ correlation that i mentioned earlier, the Germans could very well be the Greeks of Besieged, in that there are numerous factions dedicated to them, potentially numbering as many as there are both Hellenic poleis and Macedonian successors (presently, that's six factions) who are all distinct in their own way but share some key factors such as architecture and a few basic units between them all

[Rodmar]

I think that three Germanic factions would be enough at first :

• Rhine-Weser Germans (in two main leagues, Franks and Saxons)
• Oder (Suevus) Germans (in two main leagues, Suevan then Alemanni, plus Marcomanni, Quades, Longobardi)
• Eastern Germans (in two then four branches: Goths, and Vandales/Burgundians).

Also, let's not mistake 3rd-5th century Germans for 8th-11th century Germans : sometimes not the same technology and warfare.

[oshron]

thing is, the idea of divergent factions was abandoned a while ago; there used to be just one Hellenic faction that would have diverged into the Poleis and the Macedonians, then the design team decided to redo that for the more historically accurate, separate, and unique Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians. chances are, there would be one Germanic civilization with several shared elements such as their cultural aesthetics, but similarities between factions would end there. so, for example, there would probably be two separate Gothic factions, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths (that's assuming that the two Gothic cultures had diverged enough from each other during the period of 1-500 AD to warrant being included as separate factions; i don't know enough about them to say for sure off the top of my head)

though in my opinion, the Vandals, Franks, Saxons, and at least one Gothic faction would be a must; not only were they very influential on history, but they also have name recognition; tbph, most people don't think "Burgundians" when one mentioned Germanics

[Zeta1127]

Divergent factions technically did survive in the form of a tech pair choice to the City Phase between the Britons or the Gauls for the Celts, and the Seleucids are able to chose from two different pairs of champions in the City Phase, so divergent factions aren't exactly gone, but the concept should be used sparingly if at all.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Zeta1127

[Mythos_Ruler]

If any culture could include divergent factions, it's the German one. Soooo many tribes and confederations that were powerhouses and split off from each other. Could easily have a Goths faction that splits into Ostrogoths and Visigoths at the City Phase in some way or another.