as u may have guessed this scenario is all about the unification of ancient egypt, the upper kingdom and the lower kingdom
I have a ton of ideas but i still need a lot of help
the tribes would be:
-Lower Egypt, leader: Princess Nithotep, capital: Botu, UU: solar boat
-Upper Egypt, leader: King Menes, capital: Hierakonpolis, UU: composite bowman or chariot archer
-Nubia
-Sudan
-Meroe
-Assyria, or Sumeria

the timeline is 3600 bc to c.2100, and the ages would be: Protodynastic Era, Old Kingdom, New Kingdom

The objective, of course, is to destroy the lower or upper egypt and unify both ends to your rule while you stand the invasions of more hostile tribes trying to break up your kingdom
For this scenario i'd need a map of the egypt and western middle east where the nile is portrayed as a more vast body of water

No way you can have chariots then.

The Hyksos brought them only before the New Empire.

For the map, I think you can use mine (cropping what you don't want with maptweaker (utility) and making parts of the Nile "coast". It oncludes Napata, Meroe, Phoenicia...

Oh yes, dealing with the invasions of the Hyksos would be a very interesting scenario.

the hyksos only invaded egypt by the start of the 25th dynasty which is beyond the timeline, but i'm still gonna have them as a tribe
@LouLong: the chariots appeared circa 2000 bc which means they'd probably be one of the last units to be discovered on the game, that should take away some of the advantage upper egypt has on their enemy

If it ends around 2000BC, you don't need to even think about Assyria or Sudan. Meroe I think was the capital of Nubia from about 2000BC onwards. You could have Kush around the north of modern Sudan.

I think the Hyksos invaded Egypt during the 13th or so dynasty, because IIRC the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th dynasties were various Hyksos kingdoms.

BTW: Great idea for a scenario :thumbsup: :)

it's gotta be later than that
from the 25th to the 28th dynasty were all lybian kings, before that it was only pharaohs. But I like the kush idea, maybe i'll add lybia to the west

The 25th Dynasty was the Nubian dynasty of the Meroe pharoahs. They began in 747BC IIRC. The 18th Dynasty had Thutmosis the Conqueror, Queen Hatshepsut, Akhenaton and Tutankhamun, and they were around 1300BC and ruled after the Hyksos IIRC.

alright
i have no furthet arguments...
anyway that's way past the end of the scenario timeline
BTW, i'm making all nubian units to be african looking, because the nubians were known for being pitch black

Alright for those interested... The 14th, 15th and 16th Dynasties were Hyksos kingdoms, with Xois, Avaris and Pelusium as their capitals (respectively). Doesn't matter though, since you are ending your scenario around 2100BC, and the Hyksos only conquered Lower Egypt from before 1705BC, in 1674BC and in 1663BC (respectively).

EDIT: You posted when I was writing up :D

here are some sample wonders:
-Pyramid of Queops
-Pyramid of Quefren
-Pyramid of Miquerinos
-Narmer Palette
-Philae Temple
and some techs:
Writing - Hieroglyphs - Medu Nechter(sacred hieroglyphs)
Copper working
Advanced Warfare

I don't think horse was known to the Egyptians before the Hyksos came whiich happened later than the end of your scenario.

I agree it is a good idea. I even toyed with the idea of doing such a scenario in the future, especially to put to use Kinboat's brilliant units !
But I would have chosen a later time, around the Lybian dynasties.

but thats way after the actual unification, which happens around 3100 bc, its one of the first events of egyptean history...
but i'm thinking of expanding the timeline up to the greco-roman period, around 350 bc
just so i can use cool units like the mameluke, knight of anubis and elephant archer

The Knight of Anubis is a fictional unit, you shouldn't use it in a historical scenario. Good luck btw, seems interesting.

:lol: If you take it to 350BC, you won't be able to use any of those units... Egypt never employed elephants (the heat killed elephants too quickly), the Mamelukes are late Medieval Turks, and what Yoda Power said about the Anubian Knight.

they wouldn't be egyptean
the camel units will only be buildable by the civ with camel resource and advanced warfare, one of the last techs on the game
also the elefants were found to the south of upper egypt, that makes them flavor unit of the Kosh
i'm making the scenario to have four eras now:
-Protodynastic era
-Old Kingdom
-Intermediate Period (or middle kingdom)
-New Kingdom

If you can survive with your civ up to the late new kingdom you should be able to build nearly medieval units
PS- I know its not historically accurate, but i figure that if egypt had survived to that period then it could have those kinds of units

PS- I know its not historically accurate, but i figure that if egypt had survived to that period then it could have those kinds of units
Actually it's very unlikely that Egypt would deploy such units. Kinboats medieval egyptian units has a lot of armour, and the Anubis and Horus knight has those cool(but unrealistic) helmets. It's very true that Kinboats Egyptian units are of very high quality and extremly cool, but they do not belong in a historical scenario.

It's not as impossible as you make it seem yoda power
anyway im still using the horus knight because horus was the regional god of lower egypt and he might help with balancing since upper egypt starts stronger than their lower countrymen. It's gonna take some imagination to play the scenario

anyway...
i'm looking for people who know more about egypt, and that particular age so i can use their help more often instead of just asking out to anyone..
someone up to the job? C'mon ppl, team work!

still not spamming
i was wondering if anyone has any idea on how i can put on my scenario the concept of mercenaries?
They play a great part on egyptian history, the pharaohs used nubian and even greek mercenaries but i have no idea on how these units could be available
BTW, if anyone is particularly interested at my scenario just pm me so you can be part of the scenario creation team and on my special "thank you so much i really owe this people a lot" list

An idea from my Dragonlance bag : Make a building with a high maintenance cost and spawning an mercenary every 7+ turns.

that's the same idea LouLong poste a while ago...
but it only works for the nubian mercenaries(i think)
greek warriors were bought to fight the nubians and there's no wonder or building to represent that, it would seem very far-fetched..

As they're supposed to be mercenaries, a building named "Mercenaries Recruitment" works well enough for me.

but as i said there's more then one kind of mercenary so i would 2 or 3 buildings for that...
and i really dont want to make a improv/wonder for greek mercenaries

but as i said there's more then one kind of mercenary so i would 2 or 3 buildings for that...
and i really dont want to make a improv/wonder for greek mercenaries

What about an optional advancement in the tech tree? Then players could decide if they want to research it and gain access to Greek mercenaries (or several kinds of mercenaries for that matter). This would allow for a reasonable representation of proliferation as well in a pseudo-historical scenario. There are many examples of one side in a conflict facing a type of weapon, technology, or soldier, and then emulating that advantage for themselves. The trading of the tech would model the tendency toward proliferation.

Oh yeah, and with tech advancements, you could limit what types of mercs each civ has access to with the same advancement. Not so with the spawning wonders (at least I don't think so).

it sounds good, but only egypt could hire the greek mercenaries, and egypt used all kinds of mercenaries available, particularly the nubian ones, which swelled up their armies

it sounds good, but only egypt could hire the greek mercenaries, and egypt used all kinds of mercenaries available, particularly the nubian ones, which swelled up their armies

It wouldn't have to work that way. By defining what units each civ has access to, you can control what mercenaries are available to who in more complex ways. E.g., if Egypt could use many mercenaries and only the Egyptians could use greek mercenaries, make all mercenaries available with the advancement, but make the Greek mercenaries a civ-specific unit (for Egypt). Other civs can research the advancement, perhaps gaining access to other kinds of mercs (maybe even ones the Egyptians don't have access to), but not to greek mercenaries. Does this address your concern or am I missing the point?

then i'd need many different techs
the most importatant is that egypt gets greek, nubian and lybian mercenaries and phoenicia gets lybian mercenaries too.
also, lybia should get numidian spearman(same thing) and nubia gets medjay militia
if you can work a system that does it, i'll take it no questions asked

then i'd need many different techs
the most importatant is that egypt gets greek, nubian and lybian mercenaries and phoenicia gets lybian mercenaries too.
also, lybia should get numidian spearman(same thing) and nubia gets medjay militia
if you can work a system that does it, i'll take it no questions asked

Unless I'm really off (I've done this kind of thing in Civ3 basic), it would work by having a single tech available to as many civs as you like called something like, "Mercenaries." This advance would enable Greek, Nubian, Lybian, and Medjay mercenaries... whatever the specific unit names are. Under the units tab in the editor, select the Greek Mercenary and in the "available to" box, select only Egypt. Make the "prerequisite" the Mercenary advance. This will enable the Greek mercenary with the Mercenary advance (which anyone can research), but only the Egyptians will be able to build the Greek Mercenary specifically. You can similarly limit the medjay militia to Nubia, etc. For shared units, like the lybian mercenaries, you should select Egypt and Phoenicia under the "availalbe to" box, again set the prereq to "mercenaries." I'm pretty sure this will work.

If this is to be historically accurate, the military units are gonna be singularly boring. Basically only light infantry equipped with a mixture of spears, maces, axes and simple bows, with only shields for protection.

Given the timeline, "New Kingdom" as an Era name is ridiculous. The Old Kingdom ended in ~2181 BC!

I'd suggest either extending the timeline drastically, down to the New Kingdom or possible even into the Late Period, or sticking to the late Predynastic and early Old Kingdom, ending at about the reign of Cheops. Spending the last several hundred years of the scenari building yet more pyramids does not sound very fun.

@pedrov: i guess its ok, but they just wont feel like mercenaries, they'd be like normal units... well, in lack of a better idea im gonna go with that
@the last conformist:maybe you didnt read the whole thread but i said several times that the timeline is now 3500 to 500, which is the end of native ruled egypt.
as far as units you shouldnt worry because both lower and upper egypt will have almost all units of the scenario by the new kingdom age, units like the slinger and medjay militia(which aren't done yet) to the mameluke(there was egyptian mamelukes) and the elephant archers

@pedrov: i guess its ok, but they just wont feel like mercenaries, they'd be like normal units... well, in lack of a better idea im gonna go with that

What do you think would make them feel more like mercenaries? I wouldn't mind working this through because I may use a similar concept in a scenario I'm working on.

mercs were short contract hired soldiers, so it would be more logical if they were to cost gold and some shields and be a little weaker(or last for a short time, if that was possible) but i dont see how that can be done...

So you're concerned about the duration of service?

Perhaps you could have Greeks/ Nubians (etc.?) as resources, located at various points. Have them as normal powers (Although in the case of Greece I'd go with one city cut off from the rest of the world), with a few Greeks/ Nubian resources spread throughout their territory. Then you can "trade" with the Greeks for their mercenaries, and either trade with the Nubians or invade their lands for their people.

@the last conformist:maybe you didnt read the whole thread but i said several times that the timeline is now 3500 to 500, which is the end of native ruled egypt.
I'll admit I skimmed a bit.:p

as far as units you shouldnt worry because both lower and upper egypt will have almost all units of the scenario by the new kingdom age, units like the slinger and medjay militia(which aren't done yet) to the mameluke(there was egyptian mamelukes) and the elephant archers
The units will still be boring up till the Second Intermediate, but such is life.

Perhaps this was also answered in something I skimmed over, but what about the Nile? It would be a shame if you couldn't sail on it ...

I'm starting to think term of service can't be limited without getting very artificial. This would work so much better if the prerequisite for a unit could be an improvement (and not a wonder).

One suggestion is to link the mercs to a very transient resource (not quite the same idea as Mr. Do). It could be called something like "mercenary camp" or something similiarly ill-suited. This wouldn't prevent the problem of keeping mercs you've already hired (I'm not sure there's a way to avoid that problem), but it may prevent you from recruiting them at whim.

Outside of something odd like this, I think the advancement thing is going to work best. It should be reasonable if you prevent the merc units from upgrading to better mercs. They could then be rendered obsolete with time (simply because you'll be able to build better units), which would help weaken them somewhat. If you wanted better mercs later, make them conditional on a resource that doesn't pop up until later. They could still need the "mercenary" advancement, but they couldn't be build until saltpeter or whatever.

I'd make gold a prerequisite resource as well. I also think this would work out better if you made the "mercenary" advancement somewhat tangential. That is, it shouldn't be required for era advancement and you can make the advancement prohibitively expensive if you wish with the Cost for the civilization advancement.

@Mr. Do: I did thought about it, having a resource like a group of greek outcasts you could get, but im focusing on pedrov's idea as it seems to be closer to what i want for the scenario
@the last conformist:the primary units shouldn't be too boring, egypt can build at the first 2 ages units like the war chariot, the slinger, medjay militia, etc... about the nile, yes it HAS to be wide so we can sail on it, otherwise only lower egypt would be able to have cool egyptian boats
@pedrov: that idea is starting to shape up
i think we dont need further discution on it, right?

Chariots before the Second Intermediate (~1720-1540 BC) would be ahistorical ...

there were chariots around 2000 bc so im pushing them into the old kingdom

Unless I'm really off (I've done this kind of thing in Civ3 basic), it would work by having a single tech available to as many civs as you like called something like, "Mercenaries." This advance would enable Greek, Nubian, Lybian, and Medjay mercenaries... whatever the specific unit names are. Under the units tab in the editor, select the Greek Mercenary and in the "available to" box, select only Egypt. Make the "prerequisite" the Mercenary advance. This will enable the Greek mercenary with the Mercenary advance (which anyone can research), but only the Egyptians will be able to build the Greek Mercenary specifically. You can similarly limit the medjay militia to Nubia, etc. For shared units, like the lybian mercenaries, you should select Egypt and Phoenicia under the "availalbe to" box, again set the prereq to "mercenaries." I'm pretty sure this will work.

That's what I did in Great Armada. I have a tech in the past era called mercenaries that allows reiters, landsknechts and swiss pikes.
But I only allow the Dutch to have Swiss pikes and the French and League to build reiters and landsknechts.

For building them I use a system that cannot be used for your scenario though. They need a resource provided by the HRE called mercenaries. Since the HRE only sells it at a premium, the cost of the resource adds up to the shield cost of the unit. But the HRE is linked by road and close to its three markets. In your scenario I don't see how it could be done that way.

there were chariots around 2000 bc so im pushing them into the old kingdom
Link? I've read in quite a few places that the chariot was unknown in Egypt prior to the Hyksos invasion.

For building them I use a system that cannot be used for your scenario though. They need a resource provided by the HRE called mercenaries. Since the HRE only sells it at a premium, the cost of the resource adds up to the shield cost of the unit. But the HRE is linked by road and close to its three markets. In your scenario I don't see how it could be done that way.

May I ask why it worked for your scenario but not this one? Am I just clueless right now?

@pedrov: because the resource can only be provided by the civilization that has it, in this case the holy roman empire. but there is no such civ on my scenario considering i need many different mercenaries.
@the last conformist:that is true but that happened on the first intermediate period which im using to fill the old kingdom's tech tree, that makes the chariots buildable by the end of the old kingdom

Ah. Makes sense then.

Are you still sticking to three eras? Otherwise, Predynastic, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom would seem the obvious four-way split.

those ARE the eras
maybe you should read the rest of the thread...

I tried to find if there was anything posted on eras after the first post, and couldn't find it.

(Incidentally, putting chariots in the late Old Kingdom Era does not make sense if there's a separate Middle Kingdom Era.)

the middle kingdom era is gonna be pretty much filled by middle kingdom and second intermediate period techs, so i've got to use the first intermediate period techs to fill the old kingdom instead of making the middle kingdom loaded.
got it?

the middle kingdom era is gonna be pretty much filled by middle kingdom and second intermediate period techs, so i've got to use the first intermediate period techs to fill the old kingdom instead of making the middle kingdom loaded.
got it?
That's eminently reasonable, but since chariots were introduced at the beginnning of the Second Intermediate, one might have expected that they would not be enabled by a First Intermediate tech.

the Hyksos invasion ocurred during the first intermediate period, not the second
which means the egyptians got to know the chariots then

No, Hyksos was Second Intermediate. Check out this timeline (http://www.livius.org/pha-phd/pharaoh/pharaoh.htm) from Livius.org.

there's a thousand timelines and they all say something different...
call me reckless and selfish but im going wih the one that is most convenient to me.

Sure. It's your scen.

I've never seen a book or timeline, tho, that puts the Hyksos in the First Intermediate.

there is a timeline on a sudan history site that says the hyksos invasions happened on 1748 BC

That's still during the Middle Kingdom.

Anyway, do what you want. I'm probably close to the only player who'd care if chariots are introduced at the wrong point.

i dont mind disussing it, after all this is supposed to be a historical scenario

I think I've said what I've got to say on the subject.

then i need to get some work done
i need help on the tech tree of the predynastic era
i was thinking of making a tech line exclusive for egypt as:
pictorial writing - hieroglyphs - Medu Nechter(sacred tomb painting)
but they would still need to research alphabet and writing...
is there any way to get passed that?

forget the last question...
here is a preview of the predynastyc tech tree:

Archery > > > > Shields > > > > > > > V
Commerce > > > > > > > > > > Pharaohs
Writing^ > Scrolls > Architecture ^
Masonry^ ^
Ceremonial Burial > Polytheism > > > > ^

i know its a poor demonstration, but it gives you the idea, right?
any suggestions to improve it? or questions about it?

I'd have expected some agri techs. If memory serves, the Predynastic was the period in which sizeable irrigation systems came into place.

Archery is technically out-of-place, since bows were already around at the start of the covered period. You might want to re-name it into something refering to organized warfare, which was if not invented so at least developed during this period.

if the tech was bows or arrows i'd agree with you, but archery was new to egypt, the triangular bow used on egypt and nubia was only invented on the predynastic.
irrigation already existed by 3500 bc, what came later was large scale irrigation.
but then again i might take up on that suggestion anyway as that period seems pretty slim on techs...
I'd also welcome any suggestions to naval techs of the predynastic because so far there's only one researcheable boat...

I thought archery simply meant the art of using a bow. What's the distinction?

I did say sizeable irrigation systems. At any rate, my encyclopedia attributes considerable population growth to the Predynastic, which must have reflected agricultural improvements.

the problem is where would i put that tech?
and yea, archery is the art of using a bow, but in this case, it's a more recently invented bow

The agri tech? Well, it could be its own branch. Or perhaps have Cer Bur as prereq, representing the importance of ritual in larger-scale organization. It probably should be in the prereq tree for Pharaohs - perhaps as prereq for Architecture, reflecting the need for a food surplus for larger building projects.

that sounds interesting
so
Cer Bur >> Irrigation V
V
Architecture > > Pharaohs

now we're doing some real progress

this is the new tech tree:
Ceremonial Burial >> Polytheism >> >> >> V
^>> Commerce >> >> >> >> >> Pharaohs
Writing >> Scrolls >> Architecture
Irrigation >> >> >> >> >> ^ V
Archery >> >> Shields >> >> Fortress

After much consideration i finally came up with a list of the civilizations on the scenario:
Lower Egypt L: Princess Nithotep
Upper Egypt L: Warrior-King Menes
Lybia(also Numidia) L: dont know, suggestions are more then welcome
Nubia/Kush L: Great One Taharqa
Phoenicia(Carthage/Canaan) L: King of Tyre Pygmallion
Amorites L: King Ibbit-Lim
Hyksos L: dont know...

what do you think?

Numidia, Carthage, Amorites? That implies a pretty big map - I'd consider removing them to focus the scenario closer on Egypt.

For the Hyksos, you could choice some Pharaoh of the Hyksos dynasties:

Fifteenth dynasty ('Hyksos') (c.1648-1540)
Many kings, a.o.:
Shalek c.1640
Bnon
Apachnan
Suesenra Khyan c.1620
Auserra Apepi 1595-1550
Asehra Khamudy 1550-1540

Sixteenth dynasty ('Hyksos') (c.1648-1540)
Many kings, a.o.:
Anather
Yakobaam


TAM has someone called Meryre for leader of the Sea Peoples, and I seem to recall he's supposed to've been a Lybian warlord. However, googling on the name seems only to return of Egyptians bearing the name.

numidia is lybia
and im almost givin up on the amorites...
i wanted to retract the painting showing Ramses II defeating Nubian, Lybian and Syrian
but i cant seem to find a civ to simbolize syria
anyway thanx for the info on Warlord Meryre, im using King Salitis as leader for the Hyksos. Dont worry about the map
the focus is entirely on egypt as it is the only playable civ

I need an opinion
who thinks the Amorites would give a good civ raise hands please
at least on this scenario i would've thought they'd be necessary
but maybe the Hyksos can easily replace them as semitic/asian invaders

Have you checked out MaisseArsouye's new Egypt map? It might contain too little of Syria and Libya for you civ list, but it's a very nice map.

i do believe he made that map over my old request
i can always use maptweaker to expand the map to the ideal form

i was thinking that instead of the amorites i could have the assyrians or the akkadians
with the hyksos and the phoenician, the map is getting stretched a bit
both those civs would require further stretching of the map to the east, specially with the akkadians.
anyway, comments would be nice

I remain skeptic to the benefit of including much of the Asiatic Mid-East. Egypt didn't have very much to do with Mesopotamia until the New Kingdom, by which point the scenario will have diverged from real history anyway.

i do believe he made that map over my old request

Yes, I did ;)

@MaisseArsouye: i already dl, and it looks great thanx

@TLC : in Assyria's case i dont need to go much further into the mid east
i can show only the mediterranean part of their empire around the Arbel city-state

Arbel? I do suppose this isn't the same as Arbela/Arbil/Erbil/Irbil, the city in modern NE Iraq?

i dont think so
the city doesnt exist anymore,
besides its location was closer to lebanon then Iraq