Nice work on the tech tree!

Just a few random thought about the tech tree:

* It seems the Romans used a modified gallic saddle (develloped about a century before the Gallic wars) that they progressively enhanced to something that could support the rider, thus makin a cavalry charge with a lance effective. Will try to find some more on that.
* The chainmail is another Gallic invention, though only the Romans used them in large numbers.
* The Romans had a heavy use of auxilliaries, and I hardly see anything that would help introduce that, or Alexander's various allies. Maybe a mercenaries tech could be added.
* Logistics should be in, think of Marius' reformation of the Roman army. That was, along with discipline and good equipment, one of the reasons for the Roman superiority.
* Shouldn't the recurve bow be restricted to historically accurate civs, as the mounted archer isn't exactly a common sight around Mediterranea?
* Shouldn't heavy cavalry be there somewhere (cataphracti etc.)
* Sanitation appeared before Rome. If I recall correctly there are sewers remnants in Alexandria that clearly predate the Empire.

I think a nice addition to the tech tree would be to add more militarily relevant techs. After all, the Ancient Times were quite eventful as warfare go, and techniques and units were very differents.

there is a substantial difference between hieroglyphs and chinese symbols, however if you want to consider them the same then I must concur that hieroglyphs = writing.

@nemovadit
just a note, the gallic saddle, which I would call celtic saddle, came itself from the Schytians.

When I said Tarquin the great I meant Tarquinus Superbus, but I really wanted a good king, Tarquinus Priscus.

Breunor

hmm, I really can't understand what you mean here. Can you be more precise ?

* It seems the Romans used a modified gallic saddle (develloped about a century before the Gallic wars) that they progressively enhanced to something that could support the rider, thus makin a cavalry charge with a lance effective. Will try to find some more on that.
* The chainmail is another Gallic invention, though only the Romans used them in large numbers.
* The Romans had a heavy use of auxilliaries, and I hardly see anything that would help introduce that, or Alexander's various allies. Maybe a mercenaries tech could be added.
* Logistics should be in, think of Marius' reformation of the Roman army. That was, along with discipline and good equipment, one of the reasons for the Roman superiority.
* Shouldn't the recurve bow be restricted to historically accurate civs, as the mounted archer isn't exactly a common sight around Mediterranea?
* Shouldn't heavy cavalry be there somewhere (cataphracti etc.)
* Sanitation appeared before Rome. If I recall correctly there are sewers remnants in Alexandria that clearly predate the Empire.

Cavalry Charge: Well cavalry was never truly important in the Roman empire. Only in Eastern Rome with Cataphracti.

Auxiliaries: I think we should allow for Mercerinaries with "The Market". I'll see if it is possible to have a unit that is cheap to build but costs more in upkeep.

Logistics: How would that affect gameplay?

Recurve bow: Can't restrict that. The spirit of CIV is to make it possible for all civs to do all things in order to have an "alternative history".

Heavy Cavalry: = Chivalry

Sanitation: Well, it was the Romans who did it quite professionally.

there is a substantial difference between hieroglyphs and chinese symbols, however if you want to consider them the same then I must concur that hieroglyphs = writing.

I'm not considering them to be the same, but when thinking about writing categories, they are in a similar category. Chinese symbols grew out of hieroglyphics (Chinese hieroglyphics, not the Egyptian ones of course), and became more abstracted over the millennia. But they are still a symbol language.

Logistics could gives powerful new promotions? Any ideas?

@Writing/Alphabet debate:
@Kolchis/Urartu:
I would love to include Urartu, as it was more important than the semi-mythical Kolchis that I refer to (I'm thinking Golden Fleece here). Two problems with Urartu:
1) It's very hard to find any distinctly Urartian cities.
2) The land where they lived is completely mountaneous, which in CIV just doesn't work


Ok, I understand Armenia/Urartu is tough from a game standpoint. Unfortunately, I know zip about ancient Kolchis. They appear in Greek mythology, since the very ancient Greeks (from the period of the mythmakers) thought that the Black Sea was the end of the world -- Jason's trip was to the end of the earth as they understood it.

From an historical standpoint, the area we think of as Kolchis is pretty obscure. There are mixed languages and cultures, but they seem to be the forerunners of the Georgians there today. I don't really know of any history before their conquest by Persia. :(

Sorry I can't help here.

Breunor

hmm, I really can't understand what you mean here. Can you be more precise ?

Ok, I think Tarquinus Priscus is a better great leader than his son, Tarquinus Superbus. Priscus was the fifth king, and is usually considered by the quasi-myth/history as a really great king. According to legend, Ancus Marcius (fourth king) adopted him because he was so noble, and turned out to be a great king.

Tarquinus Superbus was a terrible king (again, this is legend/history), who murdered the sixth king, Servius Tullius. He was deposed after the famous Rape of Lucretia incident, by Lucretia's kinsman Lucius Junius Brutus, theoretically in 509 BC and founded the Republic. (In reality, it looks like the Etruscans were still the big boys until the 470's).

So, I would think Tarquinus Priscus is a better choice for a hero. On issue would be whether he is really a ROMAN hero, not an Etruscan one. Indeed, he is creditied for defeating Etruscans in battle for Rome.

Of course, we must remember that the Etruscans were a series of city states and never anything close to resembling a nation. So, a POTENTIAL for history is that the Ancus Marcius/Tarquinus Priscus/Servius Tullius/Tarquinus Superbus period represents a mixing and a back and forth between Latin leaders and direct Etruscan ones. In the Romans had their own leaders, they were probably approved by Etruscan overlords.

To make matters worse, both Numa and Ancus Martius (who seeems to be a Numa clone) were actually Sabines, showing that control in that period was tenuous and cultures amalgomated.

If an Etruscan Roman leader defeats other Etruscans, it probably isn't any different than the endless internal greek fights, where one Greek city defeats another.

So, I don't see how we can use Tarquinus Superbus as a hero, but Tarquinus Priscus is a good choice.


Best wishes,

Breunor

Bah, i would go for the true heros, the footmans, Tito Pullo and Lucio Vorenus. :P

Cavalry Charge: Well cavalry was never truly important in the Roman empire. Only in Eastern Rome with Cataphracti.

Logistics: How would that affect gameplay?

Heavy Cavalry: = Chivalry


Cavalry: My thought here was more to introduce a cavalry unit that wouldn't be a horse archer or a cataphract. I was thinking of Hadrian's introduction of armoured riders, Gallic nobles on horse, Philipp and Alexander's companions etc.

Logistics: either allow units to heal quicker (with logistics you have more time to get a real camp, thus more time for the wounded etc.), or allow a new, stronger infantry unit. What I had in mind here was that the legion's effectiveness had been greatly enhanced with the reforms of

Heavy cavalry/chivalry: this choice of word would introduce a western, middle-age centric bias. ;) Not to mention that it's clearly out of your timeframe: after all, the Frank king's riders were still called caballari in the chronicles of the 11th century! English only loaned the word from French during the 12th or 13th century. Weren't the Sassanids using heavy cavalry too, apart from East Rome?

The eastern Romans adopted heavy cavalry from the Sassanids.

I think we should stay away from the words "chivalry" and "knight" - they don't belong to the period. Cataphract-style heavy cavalry, OTOH, were very much in use in late Antiquity.


For the eastern med and the middle east, a three-tier cavalry succession would make sense: horse archers -> heavy cavalry -> armoured cavalry.

In the west, cavalry was never particularly important during the period. The easiest thing would be letting them follow the eastern path as a what-if thing (this may be necessary for gameplay anyway), but place could hopefully be found to include some specials like Numidian and Gothic mounted javelineers.


It's worth noting that in late Antiquity, steppe nomads like the Sarmatians fielded cataphract-style armoured cavalry in addition to traditional horse archers.

Guys, the whole discussion on the Etruscan heroes is pointless, since Etruria is out of the MOD anyway. ;)

Chivalry/Cavalry: You are right, Chivalry is the wrong word. Yet, the chivalric tradition was already present with the Goths, and, to a lesser extent, with the Germanic tribes. The word is medieval, but what it describes dates back much longer.

Just so you guys know what I have been working on instead of TAM... First draft:

spelling error found :)

This made it possible, as the newspaper wags but it, to get “a bigger bang for buck.”'9

Also, is the omission of the word 'the' in that quote intentional? The usual expression is 'a bigger bang for the buck'.

Aside from those two points, I can't see any grammatical or spelling errors!

Hey, you read it. ;)

Yea, I found those two errors already. Thanks though.

I couldn't help but to catch those errors -- it's what made me a damn good HTML and ASP QA guy in my day.... too bad I don't know a thing about XML or Python, or I'd be offering those services to the team...

Karghath, how far are you with your unit list?

News, news, of my Iberian Units :) ;

( PART II, when i finish all the part I upload and "arhive".rar, with all parts (Civilipodia of all Units, Civilopedia of Iberian, Images of Units, Images of Structures, And ideas of tactics and strategy), I think that it will be better for you Thamis).

I found new images of infantery units (Scutarii basic with iberian sword (falcata), and Scutarii Lancer) . We can observe the characteristic crest again whereupon bronze helmet is adorned. On the other hand, we can once again observe the slight great shield in the lancers that I posted in previous post.
Since already there am saying, since in the infantry the use of the crest was not general and for a greater variety in the units I consider that it would be had to clear the crest like in the first image.

http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/iberian-falcata/iberian-sword.jpeg
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/5631/asturesesperando7oe.jpg
http://img197.exs.cx/img197/1979/miliciayscutarii0qg.jpg
http://webs.ono.com/usr019/neostein/images/aIberoElefante.jpg
http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/larevista/num119/imagenes/iberos.jpg

ATTENTION

If finally the religion is implemented, in Iberia the druids ones (women and men) assumes that they would have the aspect of this image:

http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/iberian-falcata/iberian-falcatas.jpeg

In the image of Angus McBride a ceremony is reconstructed in which a soldier asks for the blessing for his falcata before an altar. The soldier takes typical the pectoral one, this one of round type and very decorated, with a lynx head, an original feline of Spain of a great beauty. The soldier also carries a leather helmet, grebas of bronze and a wide bronze belt also of which the case of the íbera falcata hangs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a very miserable representation of the leader Indibil:

http://www.cartagena-virtual.com/users/angahe/img/diccionario/Indibilg.jpg


Then a bit of the SPECIAL UNIT "Iberian Slingers"
http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/iberian-falcata/iberian-weapons.jpeg


The arm:

http://www.revistaiberica.com/images/fotos/baleares/foners/uno.jpg
http://www.mallorcaweb.net/foners/historia/f__menu_historia.htm
http://www.sonfornes.mallorca.museum/images/hondero.jpg
http://www.sonfornes.mallorca.museum/images/honderos.jpg


I'm writing a extense civilopedia of this slingers ( I have a disperse information in catalan and spanish).

Cool thanks. A final archive would be great! :D

Seems to me you can advance past the industrial age even into the modern age. What gives? This really should be called a beta and posted in the creation forum like everyone else.

Great job guys, i'm very impressed!

Specially by the spanish dude whose uses a Portuguese legend "Viriato" as his nickname.

So are there any rough deadlines planned for all this to be finished, 1 month, 6 months, a year and so on?

Good luck, keep up the awesome work! :goodjob:

After a hard and risky travel to Delphi, I have asked, and the gods have replied to me.....

TAM will be released.....
...when "they" finish it.

Bah...these gods.

Seems to me you can advance past the industrial age even into the modern age. What gives? This really should be called a beta and posted in the creation forum like everyone else.

No mod is ever finished.

After a hard and risky travel to Delphi, I have asked, and the gods have replied to me.....

TAM will be released.....
...when "they" finish it.

Bah...these gods.

ROFL!

Well, I'd say the tech tree and units will be done within 1 month, which would constitute the framework of what this is supposed to become to be standing.

Then comes the fine-tuning.

Original Post:

Heroes (not implemented yet)
- Babylon: Sargon II (Archer)
- Gaul - Brennus (Gallic Swordsman)
- Mycenae - Achilles (Phalanx)
- Rome - Scipio (Legionary)
- Scythia - gotta check my Herodotus (Horse Archer, of course) ... Herakles was sugested...
- Etruria - Thefarie Velianas (Swordsman)
- Egypt - Ramses II (War Chariot)
- Iberian Tribes - Indibil (Slinger)
- Germanic Tribes - hmm... easy to find one (Berserk)
- Carthage - Hannibal (War Elephant)
- Lydia - gotta check my Herodotus (Light Cavalry)
- Phoenicia - ? (Phoenician Trireme)
- Getae - Zalmoxis (Falxman)
- Persia - Xerxes (Immortal)
- Medes - Cyaxares (Searman)
- Britons - Boudicca (Axeman)
- Kolchis - Artag (Bronze Swordsman)
- Macedonia - Alexander (Heavy Cavalry) - King will be Philip II
- Illyria - Glaucius or Bardylis (?)
- Nubia - Heru (?)
- Berber - Antaios (Archer)
- Goths - Theoderich (Huskarl)

My opionated choices:

Babylon -- As others have said, I don't like Sargon, since he was Assyrian. Nabopolassar if you count the Chaldeans (see post above).

Gaul -- Brennus is good

Mycenae -- Achilles is fine if you want mythology. I'd give a slight preference for Heracles for a Pelopennesain hero, many historical figures to choose from (Themistocles, Pericles?)

Rome -- Scipio is good, lots of choices

Scythia -- I'm not sure whom you are using as the 'main' leader. Can use Partatus, or Madyes. Heracles is a complex choice, as ancient myths wind in and out of each others.

Huns -- I assume Attilla is the overall leader, can try Ruga or Kama

Egypt -- The best military leader Egypt ever ahd probably was Thutmosis III.
Not sure whom the overall leader is (Hatshepsut was his father's wife but not his mother). Ramses II was probably overrated but not a bad pick if Thutmosis is the 'overall' leader. Amenhotep II was a great ruler!

Iberia -- It looks like you are in better hands here than anything I can add!

Germans -- If you are going to make the Goths a seperate faction, both Theodoric and Alaric should be Goths. For mythology it should be Sigurd or Sigfried (Norse of Gerrman). For real life there are a lot of choices. If you count Franks, Clovis is a good pick. Gaiseric the Vandal may have been the most successful German leader. Not sure who your 'overall' leader is?

Carthage-- I assume Hannibul (Barca) isn't the overall leader? As a general, he is tough to beat!!

Lydia -- I assume Croesus is the ovearll leader? Maybe Gyges, who made them into a military power.

Phoenecia -- If Hiram is the overll leader, maybe Abibel of Tyre as the hero. There are a LOT of great Phoenician scientists (Thales of Miletus, Pythagoras).

Getae -- Zalmoxis is fine if you use mythology (more of a god, though). Burebista was a famous king. If he is the overall king, Dromihete is a good choice, who defeated Lysimmachus.

Persia -- Hmm, not much of a Xerxes fan, he LOST afterall! If Cyrus is the overall king, I'd go with Darius the First. He lost also (Marathon campaign) but was a tremendous military leader.

If you want a 'hero' as oppsoed to a king, its tough to beat Zopyrus. According to Herodotus, when Darius I tried to take the walls of Babylon, Zopyrus cut off his nose and ears, pretended to be an escaped slave beaten by Darius. Babylon gave him control of some of the army, and there was an elaborate plan that the Persians would run away. Of course, he eventually betrays the city to the Persians.

Media -- Cyaxeres was their greatest king. Who is the overall leadser (Dioces?)

Britons -- Well, there are more capable ones than Boudiccea, but she is a good choice

Kolchis -- are we looking at the later period (Artag), or ancient Kolchis, which is ethnically probably Georgians. Artag would be more associated with Easstern Iberia. Maybe have Armenia (Urartu) if we want an ancient presence, but are they too close to Assyria/Babylon?

Macedon -- Hard to argue with Alexander!

Illyria -- Bardyllis is a good choice (he's not the overall leader?) Glaucius is also good, who reformed an Illyrian kingdom against the Diodachi.

Nubia -- ??

Berbers -- ??? (Antaeus I would say is Libyan. If you want to include Libyans, we have Shoshenk who conquered Egypt (is he the overall leader?)

Goths -- Theodoric is good.

Oh, I missed the Etruscans. Lars Porsenna maybe, Tarquin the Great?


Anyway, just my $.02

Best wishes,

Breunor
I would prefer Thutmoses over Rameses II. Rameses II gets all of the good press. Thutmoses, Amenhotep II, Shmenkaare, are to me better choices than Rameses II. As for Nubia - Heru is an excellent choice and so is Pi-Ankhi. Either would be suitable.

@Writing/Alphabet debate:
The Alphabet, by definition, is a phonetic way of writing. Each letter (or certain letter combinations) correspond to a spoken sound.

You can write without an alphabet, as the Chinese still do, for example. Each Symbol represents a word, and symbols can be combined to make new meanings.

Just a few examples:
Alphabets: Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic
Symbols: Chinese, Hieroglyphs

Cuneiform is somewhere in between, as each letter represents a syllable.

Thus, historically, writing was developed before the alphabet.

@Babylonia/Assyria:
Yes, Assyria was the bigger and more important empire. Babylon, though, had a stronger impact on human history and is still remembered -- everywhere. Babylon was not only one of the most important cities thoughout history, it has also gained symbolic status as a signification of all civilization (as in reggae songs).

For the purpose of TAM, I would rather go with civilizations that are known than with civilizations that were good militarily, but didn't leave a big mark on human history.

@Kolchis/Urartu:
I would love to include Urartu, as it was more important than the semi-mythical Kolchis that I refer to (I'm thinking Golden Fleece here). Two problems with Urartu:
1) It's very hard to find any distinctly Urartian cities.
2) The land where they lived is completely mountaneous, which in CIV just doesn't work
In Reggae songs and Rastafari culture in general, Babylon is symbolic of civilization but with a very negative connotation attached to it. Babylon = Evil, and/or all of the negative effects of civilization and humankinds separation from God.

In Reggae songs and Rastafari culture in general, Babylon is symbolic of civilization but with a very negative connotation attached to it. Babylon = Evil, and/or all of the negative effects of civilization and humankinds separation from God.


I think its more becouse Rome as the capitol of the "civilized world" became to be considered in ancient times as The New Babylon.

Karghath, how far are you with your unit list?

Mostly done, without UUs tho. I've got a lot of promotions too. Still need a couple, and especially a naming scheme. I still need to compile the final list, but the end of semester is really sucking a lot of my time, as I just finished writing my short movie script and I still need to do an script analysis on the movie Short Cuts. Everything should be done tomorrow.

I'll try to post everything sunday, if not, it's going to be delayed until wednesday, as I have have tons of stuff to do in the mean time: office party, hockey game, exams, etc.

Nothing is implemented tho, and hardly playtested, but I carefully did it on paper, with the help of the nice combat analysis some people did. We'll see how it plays out. If I have the time I will implement it myself in xml, but if not someone else will at least be able to do it.

I hope that you guys are dividing the Meele Category for units into pure Meele units and Polearms. I think is a good idea to put in diferente categories the Gallic Swordsman and the Phalanx, as an example. Same thing with Calvary, having a Heavy line and a Light line. Just my 2 cents.

BTW, I think that this Mod in Civ4 is going to be much more better that the C3C versión, not only because of realism, also because of the flexibility that the game has.

@Polietileno

The units are divided into Light units(archers, skirmishers), Medium (Swordsman, Axeman), Heavy(Spearman, Pikeman), Light Cavalry (Horse Archer), Heavy Cavalry (Cataphract).

So yeah, we did just that =)

Genius!!!

I´m still looking to get a decent computer to play Civ4 (I wonder if it runs in Windows 3.1 :cry:) but ASAP, I´m planing to get the mod and playing it. Also am looking to do European Medieval-Rennacence Mod, basicly were TAM stops chronologicaly.

I think its more becouse Rome as the capitol of the "civilized world" became to be considered in ancient times as The New Babylon.

Hehe, no the "bad reputation" of Babylon is due to Hebrews that described it as a city of sinners and worshippers of Satana and the like. Aaah, jealousy is an ugly beast.

@Polietileno

The units are divided into Light units(archers, skirmishers), Medium (Swordsman, Axeman), Heavy(Spearman, Pikeman), Light Cavalry (Horse Archer), Heavy Cavalry (Cataphract).

So yeah, we did just that =)

shouldn't Light Cav. also include a horseman wielding a spear (lancer ?) ? Like the horseman in Civ3. It was a common mounted unit back in those ages.

I think what you quoted from Karhgath were more like examples rather than a definitive list of units.

It would make more sense if all mounted units with ranged weapons (bows, javelins) were in one group and all with close-combat weapons (spears, lances, swords, etc) in another.

What I always wondered is: Shouldn't horse archers be in the ranged category? I mean, for you as fighter it doesn't matter whether the arrow is coming from horseback or from a hill, right?

A small update on the progress:

I have implemented all the technologies of the Ancient Age, at least tech-tree wise. Artwork is messed up, so is sound. All pedia entries and mouse-over hints are either incorrect or placeholders.

There won't be an update for a while, because, in order for this to work, we have to complete or update all XMLs related to:

- tech tree
- eras
- units
- buildings
- improvements
- worker jobs
- resources

I NEED HELP HERE! ;)

What I always wondered is: Shouldn't horse archers be in the ranged category? I mean, for you as fighter it doesn't matter whether the arrow is coming from horseback or from a hill, right?
Not much. :)


You might want to have them in a separate category from foot archers if you have any horse-spooking effects, however. Elephants, frex, could merit a bonus against any horse units, but hardly against foot archers.

I think I'll stick to the normal unit categories that are in the game though. No need to complicate things further.

A small update on the progress:

I have implemented all the technologies of the Ancient Age, at least tech-tree wise. Artwork is messed up, so is sound. All pedia entries and mouse-over hints are either incorrect or placeholders.

There won't be an update for a while, because, in order for this to work, we have to complete or update all XMLs related to:

- tech tree
- eras
- units
- buildings
- improvements
- worker jobs
- resources

I NEED HELP HERE! ;)

What sort of help exactly thamis. I can easily copy/paste, retype xml files. I've been altering these CFC mods since they started coming out to tailor them to my liking. :) Let me know what grunt work needs doing and I'll see what I can do.

Be well
:goodjob:

Q: Ancient lancers... were there such units? AFAIK until stirrup came along it would prove inefective.

Q: Are there any plans to increase improvements yields with ancient technology?

Ineffective against good solid iron or steel armour, yes. Against no armour, leather or exposed points of a bronze cuireass, it would be devastating. In reality, the early lancer was a man on horseback with a spear who could ride close and stab from a distance.

What sort of help exactly thamis. I can easily copy/paste, retype xml files. I've been altering these CFC mods since they started coming out to tailor them to my liking. :) Let me know what grunt work needs doing and I'll see what I can do.

Once I'm done with the tech tree (within a few days), each of us can start working on a different XML file, as the TechInfos is the one that ties them all together.

Once I'm done with the tech tree (within a few days), each of us can start working on a different XML file, as the TechInfos is the one that ties them all together.

PM me if you need help. I have over a week off for the Holidays. :D

If you need Translations in Spanish, don´t worry and PM me.

@Poli:

Well you could just go through the XML files and change the text in the Spanish tags, as right now they are all English. Then email me the files at write AT jan.vandercrabben.name

Be well
:goodjob:

Q: Ancient lancers... were there such units? AFAIK until stirrup came along it would prove inefective.
The Macedonian companion cavalry famously used lances, and by all accounts was pretty effective. Now, they won't have used them to skewer opponents like a medieval knight, but rather for stabbing, as Sword Dancer says.

If you need Translations in Spanish, don´t worry and PM me.

Pero intenta hacerlo en español neutro, no en en el español que se habla en Perú.

I made some small changes to the tech tree and made the first draft of the unit chart. Right now, only land units are done, and I've followed more or less the standard civ progression for the unit's power. If you have any suggestions, let me know. The big difference will be the Promotions, and that's the hard part I've been working on.

Units are divided into 7 categories:
SKI - Skirmisher
MED - Medium
HEA - Heavy
MSK - Mounted Skirmisher
CAV - Cavalry
ELE - Elephant
SIE - Siege Engine

I still need to include non-regular units, like scouts and mercenaries, and also unique units.

Also, since units in Civ4 can now take more than 1 tech as a prereq, maybe revising the tech tree a bit? For example, to reach Military Tradition from Cavalry requires 14 techs and only 10 from Iron Working.

Maybe Mounted Combat shouldn't require Composite Bow, but Horse Archer would need Mounted Combat AND Composite bow as a prereq?? Same for Armored Infantry, because I don't want to add Mil. Training as a prereq to Heavy Armor.

Oh Yeah, I changed Recurve Bow to Composite Bow(includes both composite and recurved), removed fishing(will be rolled back in boat building, it was too deep) and made 1 or 2 minor changes to the tree.

Tech Tree (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Tech%20Tree.gif)
Unit Chart (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Unit%20Chart.gif)

I'll post the promotion chart today or friday.

The image “http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Unit%20Chart.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Hum?

Aargh... Please let this be the last change to the tech tree until it's done. I've started working on it, and constant changes will be the cause of MAJOR confusion.

Word from the gods: "Tech tree frozen at this latest point until, in their infinite wisdom, the gods say otherwise." ;)

Regarding the unit categories:
Do you want these to have any gameplay-effect (such as the current 5 types of melee, archery, mounted, gunpowder, and armoured)?

Pero intenta hacerlo en español neutro, no en en el español que se habla en Perú.

I don't care what Spanish you write. ;)

Kargath mercenaries are very very important.

@thamis

In South America is very common a few words that in spanish stardard are no-frequent, like "acá" ("here" in english and "aquí" in spanish normal speaking ( athough "acá" is accepted)).

Mercenaries will certainly be in the game. I will see whether I can get the game to make them very cheap (nearly free) but have a higher upkeep cost.

And as long as every Spanish person understands the Spanish... fine by me. ;)

Doh, as soon as I get home I'll upload it again. I uploaded that real quick before leaving for work. Or maybe I can do it at work, let me see.

As for teh tech tree, sorry =( No more changes now, heh.

And yeah, the categories are going to be used like the ones in the game right now. For example, Flaming Pigs(a promotion, probably for siege engines) will give bonus against elephants.

Units are more or less in synch with what's in the game right now (I don't want thousands of standards units), but the promotion system is going to be really different.

And yeah, Mercs are going to be important, but I dunno how we want to do that. Do we have a merc for every type of units? or only certain units with certain techs? Enslave-like ability? As long as the standard units are done, mercs and others can be put on the chart real easy.

The Macedonian companion cavalry famously used lances, and by all accounts was pretty effective. Now, they won't have used them to skewer opponents like a medieval knight, but rather for stabbing, as Sword Dancer says.

Be well
Oh mounted spearmen, sure.

Q: could technologies lower cost of units representing lowered training required (discovery of stirrups) or cheaper equipment (bronze->iron change)?

Word from the gods: "Tech tree frozen at this latest point until, in their infinite wisdom, the gods say otherwise." ;)
I hear, but I would like to bring it to the gods' attention that An Husb requiring Patoralism rather than vice versa is weird.

It also seems odd that Riding requires An Husb while Chariot does not.

Tech Tree (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Tech%20Tree.gif)
Unit Chart (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Unit%20Chart.gif)



Links are fixed.

What would be a real-world counterpart to the Armoured Javelineer? A legionary throwing his pilum?

@Karhgath:

Here are my thoughts on the unit list:
- I like the Archer/Javelineer split. The combat values should be a bit higher, though. Why ever build a normal skirmisher, if the clubman is stronger (also vs SKI)? I suggest:
Clubman: 2
Javelineer: 2 +75% SKI
Archer: 3
Composite Archer: 5
Armored Javelineer: 3 +100% SKI

Then, I think Spearman good vs Cavalry should be much weaker. The spearman should also get an archery bonus. I suggest:
Spearman: 4 +25% CAV +15% MSK
Hvy Spearman: 5 +25% CAV +25% MSK
Horse Archer: 4
Heavy Horse Archer: 6
Mounted Javelin: (same)

The Elephant shouldn't do collateral damage.

I don't think the Siege Tower is a good idea at all. By itself it can't attack, so why should it be able to?

Hmm... my thoughts are a bit confused right now. In general, I think we should weaken the Cavalry side. Only Heavy Cavalry should be very good. I think we should rather make Cavalry highly likely to withdraw, but weak compared to the other units. It's more of a harrassment unit.

Siege: I'm only for catapult in this area. The Ballista was important, but it's more of a put-man-on-spike weapon. It shouldn't get bombard, only collateral I think.

I hear, but I would like to bring it to the gods' attention that An Husb requiring Patoralism rather than vice versa is weird.

It also seems odd that Riding requires An Husb while Chariot does not.

I had previously noted this too, but assumed in this thread that since chariots will most probably needs horses to be built, and horses need Animal Husbandry, chariots will in fact need Animal Husbandry in the end.


About Javelineers. Why do they get a bonus vs SKI ? SKI units are Javelineers themselves and Archers. AFAIK Javs were not put on the field to contrast other javs or archers... they should get a bonus vs MED IMHO.

Another note, the Chariot, if we look at realism, is more of a SKI unit than a CAV unit. Fighters on chariots would use ranged weapons, like bows or javeleens.

I had previously noted this too, but assumed in this thread that since chariots will most probably needs horses to be built, and horses need Animal Husbandry, chariots will in fact need Animal Husbandry in the end.


About Javelineers. Why do they get a bonus vs SKI ? SKI units are Javelineers themselves and Archers. AFAIK Javs were not put on the field to contrast other javs or archers... they should get a bonus vs MED IMHO.

Another note, the Chariot, if we look at realism, is more of a SKI unit than a CAV unit. Fighters on chariots would use ranged weapons, like bows or javeleens.

Bright day
maybe instead of giving large bonuses to SKI just give them several "free strikes"? From my reading on Peloponesian war peltastes were able to defeat hoplites only thanks to their mobility... But if hoplites catched up with them they were mincemeat.

Another note, the Chariot, if we look at realism, is more of a SKI unit than a CAV unit. Fighters on chariots would use ranged weapons, like bows or javeleens.
If you'll notice, Karhgath has both chariots and chariot archers.

Historically, charioteers normally fought primarily with bows (don't ask me why the CivIII chariot guy fights with some kind of funky polearm), but some apparently prefered close-combat weapons. Hettite charioteers are usually portrayed as spearmen.

Ok... Here we go:

@TLC
I see early Javelineer without armor or shields, since it comes so early. Armored Javelineer are peltast and the like, since they usually are somewhat armored and sporting a shield.

I have trouble making them fit properly, but I think, like Thamis said, that reducing the clubman would be good.

@OneDreamer/Gladi
Well, when you check it out, a Javelineer vs Javelineer, the bonuses negate each others, so they aren't better. I don't want to add a ARCHER and SKIRMISHER category just for that.

I always pictured javelineer as archery killer... get them in range and they just harpoon the poor unarmored skirmishers, still with a certain range between them. A javelin is much more powerful and precise than an arrow. Give them a shield and they are even better at their job.

I'll read again on them... one thing I DON'T want to do is include 'special' battles and such. So yeah, if you read that one or twice peltast killed a hoplite, well, that will be 'luck' and the dice roll in Civ4, it's not a rule. Peltast aren't hoplite killers.

However, I could see them having a smaller +bonus against med infantry...

Still, you guys haven't seen my promotions, so units can 'specialize' and get specific bonus against other types. For example, medium units can get some promotions to give them bonus vs heavy units, or city attack, etc. So, for Skirmishers, I'd allow them some promotions against med units, maybe heavy, but stock they wouldn't be better against them. Usually, mobility promotions gives some bonus against med/heavy, and skirmishers will have access to mobility related promotions.

The promotions aren't 100% done, but I'll post it tonight and we'll be able to talk about it.

@TLC
Yeah. At first I didn't wanted to split them(only 1 chariot unit), but I had no choice, after reading extensively on the subject.

@Thamis
Ok for clubman and Spearman. I actually found the bonus too high, especially since there are VS CAV specific promotions (Hold the Line, etc.).

As for CAV, yeah, I had 4/6 for horse archers at first, I increased them a bit after adding Chariot Archers, but you are right, 4/6 is better.

For elephant: so no trample? I dunno if they actually trampled in batte. So both shouldn't get trample?

Siege towers were really important in ancient warfare... I agree it's hard to picture it as a unit itself. However, I already have Ladders, Battering Rams and Infiltration as promotions, so maybe adding Siege Tower there too, or not, since there are already 3 +% city attack promotions.

So, should I remove Ballista? One thing I did is read up on ancient siege warfare... did you actually know that, the catapult that we know about, it actually not a catapult... in fact, a catapult throws a big arrows and a ballista is a rock thrower. Furthermore, the stone thrower all used slings instead of the usual cups we see, since a sling has MUCH more range. Cups were used a bit in early medieval for more precision, but not that much.

Anyway, we'll use the standard civ terms, but I was surprised when reading that, hehe.

So, no Siege Tower, no Ballista, only Catapult coming with Siege Warfare?

As for cavalry, should I reduce Light Cavalry to 5? Do I lower Chariot too?

Also, with the elephants not doing collateral... there is not much difference between Elephants/War Elephants and Spearman/Heavy Spearman... Except that elephant withdraw and get a bit more bonus against CAV/MSK. Collateral gave them a slight edge and usefulness... I know that they weren't actually that useful tho, but where's the fun in not having trampling elephants? =) I want my (trampling) elephants!

Is this compatible with the new patch at all?

Kushan

Happy Christmas day (at least where I am ;))
@Kargath
Of course they are not heavy infatry killer, under even least non-favourable conditions.

Q:What is the role of javelineers? If we still have archers as primery city defenders we will use javelineers as city attackers?

I don't see archers as pure city defenders, like civ4, until fortifications, that's why they don't have native + city defense. Javelineers are low cost units, especially good against archers, so it's a good idea to have some around to protect your troops. Obviously, they aren't going to be your main troops, just support as it's supposed to be. With promotions, they have a broad range of usefulness.

However, the diff between Archers and Skirmishers are the promotions. Archers are more about support and defense, and skirmishers are more about support, mobility and some offensive capablities.

HEY THAMIS thx soo much I registered just to thank you for creating the ALPHA and OMEGA mod For any civ game. this mod got me playing ((after countless uninstallation and reinstallation's due to the fact that TAM was not in my life!))civ III for about a year till Civ IV came out. I wish i can help you in any way but i have no skill but i will be learning programming this christmas vacation. soo i might as well learn XML and Visual Basic. i will learn them and from that day i will help wou with XML.

By the way i was thinking (for gameplay purposes) the siege towers, im my opinion, were an important asset and helped to produce victory for the besieger. soo why dont you make the Siege tower in the game have the ability to carry units and like a transport have the unit attack from the siege tower giving the unit a bonus attack on cities or forts. its a stupid idea but you will make good out of it guys.

Thanks again thamis and his helpers you guys did a great job in civ III TAM v. 2.5 and it is inevitabe you will do better this time around with Civ IV

Javelineers are good for removing shields/disrupting formations. Skirmishers should get a bonus attacking into or out of rough terrain if possible but be practically defenseless in the open. Slingers and javelineers should be approx equivalent in strength but javelineers would be better against heavier armored troops and more expensive. Both should have a very high withdraw chance on attack.

Balance to archers, archers are more expensive (to train and maintain) with more first strikes (better range) compared to skirmishers. Comparable power though, which would make skirmisher attack against archers more effective in terms of cost.

In the chart, the only heavy units are spearmen, which are effective in formation but weak on flanks. Also they're very slow so skirmishers should get a bonus vs them.

Why is elephant in a category by itself? I know it's unique but it's similar to cavalry and could have effects applied to the individual units themselves.

Most fast cavalry should negate first strike bonuses (preferrably only when attacking).

Another possibility for an early siege weapon would be a battering ram. Only good for reducing city defenses and cheap.

For the period, massed infantry (med and heavy infantry) were the powerhouses. Spear phalanxes winning out on the open and med inf winning in rougher terrain. Skirmishers and archers would be needed in the supporting fire and disruption of enemy formations. Towards the end of the period cav starts getting very effective, though should just be on open ground.

Also, where are the naval units?

Elephant are in a category of their own because some promotions will give bonus against them (flaming pigs and break formation). As I recall, spearmen weren't that good against elephants, so I don't think spearman should get a bonus against elephants either. In fact, powerful hand weapons(axes and the like) were usually used to cut the legs of elephants. I think I should increase the power of elephants tho...

For cavalry, negate first strike is a promotion, as I don't want them to negate first strike right away, flanking tactics and the like with cavalry took a while to appear and be perfected.

Battering rams is a promotions, since it's not a unit by itself. Ladders too, so maybe siege tower too since having it as a seperate unit is weird.

Naval units are in the pipeline, but if anyone wants to do naval units and promotions, go ahead.

I don't see archers as pure city defenders, like civ4, until fortifications, that's why they don't have native + city defense. Javelineers are low cost units, especially good against archers, so it's a good idea to have some around to protect your troops. Obviously, they aren't going to be your main troops, just support as it's supposed to be. With promotions, they have a broad range of usefulness.

However, the diff between Archers and Skirmishers are the promotions. Archers are more about support and defense, and skirmishers are more about support, mobility and some offensive capablities.

So what is the role of SKI? Cannon fodder?

Holy guacamole! Loads of replies.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

Ok...

Skirmishers: I think they should rather get a bonus against heavy infantry. Weak unit, high withdrawal change, and good against heavy infantry (cuz heavy inf is too slow).

Archers: Should get more first strikes than Skirmishers. Skirmishers should get only 1 first strike.

Remember, first strike is a VERY POWERFUL tool.

Siege Tower: I suggest that this should be the 3rd promotion, only available to late-game units (i.e. those that come in the Imperial Age).

Elephants: We could give them trample bonus, which comes after the 1st +10% pomotion and which gives slight collateral damage. I don't want them to be too strong. The thing with collteral damage is that any unit that does collateral can win in any situation as long as you bring enough of them along.

General balance: Up to the Imperial Age, spear-units should be the leading units, power wise. Then, heavy swords and heavy cavalry should take over. I think you've already done that nicely in your chart, Karhgath.

Now here comes another idea...

As different units have different qualities when fighting, how about we give them different defense boni?

Spears: +20% in flatlands, +10% in hills
Swords, Axes: +15% in forests, jungles
Archers: +25% on hills, (not sure if this is possible: +100% across river)

And, also not sure if this is possible, Light Cavalry should generally get +1 sight radius, how about that? Light Cavalry gotta be weak, high withdrawal chance (it shouldn't be over 75% including all promotions though), and more of a scouting-harrassing unit.

HEY THAMIS thx soo much I registered just to thank you for creating the ALPHA and OMEGA mod For any civ game. this mod got me playing ((after countless uninstallation and reinstallation's due to the fact that TAM was not in my life!))civ III for about a year till Civ IV came out. I wish i can help you in any way but i have no skill but i will be learning programming this christmas vacation. soo i might as well learn XML and Visual Basic. i will learn them and from that day i will help wou with XML.

By the way i was thinking (for gameplay purposes) the siege towers, im my opinion, were an important asset and helped to produce victory for the besieger. soo why dont you make the Siege tower in the game have the ability to carry units and like a transport have the unit attack from the siege tower giving the unit a bonus attack on cities or forts. its a stupid idea but you will make good out of it guys.

Thanks again thamis and his helpers you guys did a great job in civ III TAM v. 2.5 and it is inevitabe you will do better this time around with Civ IV

Thanks, we're doing our best. :) :king:

thamis,
thank you for your great work it's very funny to play with different countries but i have a complain... i think sid's leaderheads are ridiculous will you add new ones?? Merry christmas !!

@Thamis
I don't think we can give + defense bonus on flatlands... since terrain now works differently, grass/plain is now a base terrain, so a hills or forest is usually on a plain or grass... this would give them + defense on all terrain.

Units can have different/bonus sighting ranges IIRC, so bonus for light cav should be doable.

A way to balance the elephant 'trample' bonus would be doable with a small python tweak (I haven't looked real in depth and I don't specifically know python but I have looked at the event API) for on unit death... have it cause damage to units in the stack from elephants panicking and trampling friendlies. That might be a bit unfair for attack failures and I can't recall offhand if there's a separate event for dying while defending. Doesn't seem to be, just onUnitKilled. Still doable I think. (Python is on my list of languages to learn, mostly because of CIV.) :D

Spear bonus on open ground is good but hills probably not. It already has a bonus and the unwieldy formations typical where not very good in broken terrain. That's why the roman's dropped the phalanx in favor of a more flexible formation.

Is it possible to give cavalry bonus attacking on open ground?

Also, is it possible to give a defender a 'lessen attacker withdrawal chance'? Thus faster units could reduce withdrawal chance while still allowing good withdrawal chances against slow formations. i.e. a phalanx is going to find it very hard to engage an attacking horse archer (95%+ withdraw chance with all promotions maybe?) while a javelineer under ideal circumstances (all promotions) might only have a 60% withdraw chance attacking a swordsman.

@Thamis
I don't think we can give + defense bonus on flatlands... since terrain now works differently, grass/plain is now a base terrain, so a hills or forest is usually on a plain or grass... this would give them + defense on all terrain.

Can you give a penalty on hill/forest? If so, give bonus on plain/grassland/tundra? and a penalty on hill/forest to remove that bonus.

Is the composite archer too powerful? it's as powerful as a spearmen... they probably can't fortify tho, so the spearman is better at defense... until city defense promotions kicks in for the archers.

Maybe reducing composite archer to power 4 and adding a new archer with Mil. Training? I think I'll do that.

Modding will probably be required to give attacking bonus on terrain, since only defensive bonus on terrain is implemented right now.

As for lessen withdraw chance, it will require moding but is something I want to do.

Oh, yeah, thanks for the tip on giving + on grass/plains/tundra and - on hills/forests.

** Unit Chart is updated

thamis,
thank you for your great work it's very funny to play with different countries but i have a complain... i think sid's leaderheads are ridiculous will you add new ones?? Merry christmas !!

Of course, we'll eventually have completely ancient leaderheads. The Sid ones are only placeholders. OF COURSE! ;)

A way to balance the elephant 'trample' bonus would be doable with a small python tweak (I haven't looked real in depth and I don't specifically know python but I have looked at the event API) for on unit death... have it cause damage to units in the stack from elephants panicking and trampling friendlies. That might be a bit unfair for attack failures and I can't recall offhand if there's a separate event for dying while defending. Doesn't seem to be, just onUnitKilled. Still doable I think. (Python is on my list of languages to learn, mostly because of CIV.) :D

This is a good one, I like that. We should keep that very low, though.

Is it possible to give cavalry bonus attacking on open ground?

Would be good... we gotta look into that. But I think we should keep the heavy modding stuff for later, let's first get the mod rolling. But let's all keep that in our minds, and see if we come across anything that would permit it.

Also, is it possible to give a defender a 'lessen attacker withdrawal chance'? Thus faster units could reduce withdrawal chance while still allowing good withdrawal chances against slow formations. i.e. a phalanx is going to find it very hard to engage an attacking horse archer (95%+ withdraw chance with all promotions maybe?) while a javelineer under ideal circumstances (all promotions) might only have a 60% withdraw chance attacking a swordsman.

Excellent idea. I'd like that, but again, I think that would require some serious modding including python.

Is the composite archer too powerful? it's as powerful as a spearmen... they probably can't fortify tho, so the spearman is better at defense... until city defense promotions kicks in for the archers.

Maybe reducing composite archer to power 4 and adding a new archer with Mil. Training? I think I'll do that.

I think we should reduce the powers of archers and give them back their city and hill defend role.

I know Dale is working on a true stack attack mod (I've seen a beta version on Firaxis test site). Once that is implemented, it would be cool. Archers would be in the back, and shoot over the front-line units at the enemy's front line units. Cavalry would flank in if the others don't have cavalry and attack the archers fro behind. Good stuff here.

On the updated unit chart:

Armored Infantry, shouldn't that be in the Heavy class?

Why would Javelineer get a bonus vs SKI? Archers should have no problems to kill javelineers, because they don't have shields. Spearmen and heavy infantry should get some kind of bonus against archers, rather than SKI. I think the withdrawal chance would be good enough for the javelineers.

Withdrawal: I don't think we should ever give more than 40% withdrawal chance. These units also get the potential promotions!

Thus...

- Horse Archer & Mounted Jav: 40% withdrawal
- Heavy Horse Arch: 35%
- Light Cav: 30%
- Chariot: 15%

And...
- Elephant: WHY 50%? Because they don't die so easily?

About the flatland defense: Is anyone positive that this would be possible?

A way to balance the elephant 'trample' bonus would be doable with a small python tweak (I haven't looked real in depth and I don't specifically know python but I have looked at the event API) for on unit death... have it cause damage to units in the stack from elephants panicking and trampling friendlies. That might be a bit unfair for attack failures and I can't recall offhand if there's a separate event for dying while defending. Doesn't seem to be, just onUnitKilled. Still doable I think. (Python is on my list of languages to learn, mostly because of CIV.) :D


I don't really think it would be unfair on attack failures. Whether it is a footman that attacks an elephant and gets thrown 50 meters away, or the elephant to have the initiative, the effect on the moral of the other men would most probably be the same ;)
Anyways, are you sure that it would actually apply on attack ? Since I believe the fight takes place on the defender's square, there wouldn't be the stack of the attacker there.

@Karghath
Javelineers are not archers killer but rather the other way around. They were used in the front lines to weaken defensive lines, after shooting their javelins they would withdraw. I also don't think they should get a bonus vs heavy just because they're slow... I think they should just have 1st strike and withdraw, that's enough to represent them correctly, it will be a unit meant to weaken the enemy lines with a high % of survival. But if you really want to give them bonuses, I think vs MED is the best.

About the flatland defense: Is anyone positive that this would be possible?

I don't know Python, but can't you give a defense bonus in general EXCEPT hills/forests ?

I just checked the XML. It seems to be possible to give modifiers for certain terrains. What I don't know is whether that modifier also applies when that terrain has a feature on top of it.

Thus: Does Spearman on Forest with fighting bonus on flatlands mean:
Grassland +0%
Spearman Bonus on Grassland +25%
Forest Bonus +25%

Or does the grassland bonus go away when it has a feature? Gotta check that out.

Also, it seems to be possible to make units be built more quickly with a certain resource. Thus the idea of making all units available but giving those with the right resources a distinct advantage would work out.

IJavelineers are not archers killer but rather the other way around. They were used in the front lines to weaken defensive lines, after shooting their javelins they would withdraw. I also don't think they should get a bonus vs heavy just because they're slow... I think they should just have 1st strike and withdraw, that's enough to represent them correctly, it will be a unit meant to weaken the enemy lines with a high % of survival. But if you really want to give them bonuses, I think vs MED is the best.

Bright day
Yes it should be enough to represent them in realistic terms, but we need to find way to represent them in CIV terms:).

Thamis- interesting to hear about (resources)

Q: What will armies primarily consist of? MED or HEA?

I just checked the XML. It seems to be possible to give modifiers for certain terrains. What I don't know is whether that modifier also applies when that terrain has a feature on top of it.

Kargath seemed to think it possible with bonus for grassland/plains/tundra and corresponding penalty for hills (to make the bonus go away)

Also, it seems to be possible to make units be built more quickly with a certain resource. Thus the idea of making all units available but giving those with the right resources a distinct advantage would work out.

I was going to make a suggestion of a combat bonus for appropriate special resources. You can have a stone (or copper) axeman but with iron it's more effective. Some units wouldn't have stone or bronze equivalents. One way to implement would be multiple units with the bronze/copper obsoleting the stone, which is obsoleted by the iron. Could even go to having different costs between them.

I have a very good pc, and in the last times of the mod, the ralentization is very big. Maybe the mod must to have less civs.

How i can play this mod?

I copy the files into civ iv dir and load the mod but in single player mode i just can select load savegame, the rest of the options arent enabled.

My civ is 1.52

Thanks

I copy the files into civ iv dir and load the mod but in single player mode i just can select load savegame, the rest of the options arent enabled.

The only way I've found is to use the Load Scenario option. But when re-loading a saved game later on this causes weirdness - just loading the saved game fails. If I load the scenario and act like I'm starting a new game it works but I have to start the "new" game with the same options as the old one or I'm assigned to a different culture and the game locks up.

I don't think this has anything to do with the mod though - I figure I'm just using the software wrong.

How i can play this mod?

I copy the files into civ iv dir and load the mod but in single player mode i just can select load savegame, the rest of the options arent enabled.

My civ is 1.52

Thanks

The best way to load the MOD is by double-clicking the map in the PublicMaps sub-folder.

I have a very good pc, and in the last times of the mod, the ralentization is very big. Maybe the mod must to have less civs.

The speed issue should be the same if you play any of the real world maps. We haven't even changed the rules yet! It's just map size and amount of civilizations.

I will aim to reduce the amount of units roaming around the MOD, in order to speed up the game. Thus: Units will cost more upkeep, and there are less gold-increasing buildings.

I've finally completed the TechInfos.xml! :D

Here it is:

Mods\The Ancient Mediterranean\Assets\XML\Technologies\CIV4TechInfo s.xml (http://www.jan.vandercrabben.name/tam/civ4/CIV4TechInfos.xml)

Now, as this is the one thing that ties everything together, now we can split workloads!

These are the things that need to be done, and who will do them. If there's nobody doing it and you feel like you could do it, feel free to sign up (by posting)!

- Technology Texts. (Thamis)
- Units. (Karhgath)
- Promotions. (Karhgath)
- Eras - Change names, Ancient -> Industrial = Ancient Age, Bronze Age, Classical Age, Imperial Age, Migration Age. (sign up!)
- Resources - tie their appearance to techs. (sign up!)
- Worker jobs - tie to techs. (sign up!)

When editing any of these, make sure to copy and paste any tech names! A tiny typo can ruin everything.

PS: Karhgath: I added Fishing back in (req. Boat Building), can you put that back into the tech tree please? I also kept the name Recurve Bow instead of Composite Bow.

I will also post this list in the 1st post.

Now the next things we need to think about are:

- Buildings
- Civics

I should have the updated charts + promotions during the night.

As for Archers and city defense... they aren't useful without city walls, so I'll give them city defense promotions at the same time as the first city walls (Masonry... or Palisades with wood working?) Also, early on and before siege warfare, lots of wars were fought outside of the cities, so it wasn't tons of archers on walls defending the cities.

Elephants... they won't get mobility related promotions, so they will never increase their withdraw chance.. but I dunno if 50% is good. They usually panic when they are wounded, so they don't really withdraw, they just flee/disband/rampage. How could we simulate that?

Ok, updated charts:

Tech Tree (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Tech%20Tree.gif)
Units (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Unit%20Chart.gif)
Promotions (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/TAM%20-%20Promotions.gif)

I'm not 100% satisfied with the promotions, any comments?

@Thamis
I will do the units and promotions xml.

BTW, I have to give elephants collateral damage, since there is no way to add the ability with promotions, you can only give +% collateral.

As for Archers and city defense... they aren't useful without city walls, so I'll give them city defense promotions at the same time as the first city walls (Masonry... or Palisades with wood working?)
City walls are practically coëval with cities - think Jericho. Realistically, they should come very early.

City Attack: I think only MED and HEA should get it. Archers and javelineers wouldn't really have a chance with battering rams. No shields means that they'd be killed before they get there (not possible to simulate that in CIV, but still).

Woodsman, Guerilla: I think it's possible to give a general combat bonus, not only a defense bonus. If that's possible, I think we should add that. I would remove the City Defence from Guerilla though.

Combat III, IV, V: I think these should only be available to MED, HEA, and CAV, in order to simulate the predominance of these units in the Imperial Migration Age.

Shock: Available to Heavy? I would remove HEA and add MSK there.

Good stuff.

And... what is Flaming Pigs?

I've updated the TechInfos.xml, as there was an error in there. Nothing serious, and I haven't changed any of the tech names either.

What type of buildings can i put in the future document?

-Houses.
-Quarter of arms
-Barn
-Stables

What more?

In the mathery of buildings i have a lot of problems to look information, i suppose a bit of things that in the future document i will coment it.

Let me think:

Normal Buildings
- Holy Site (Nature Cult) +1 :) +1 Culture
- Granary (Pottery) default
- Palisades (Wood Working) +25% defence
- Copper Smithy (Copper Working) +4 XP
- Bronze Smithy (Bronze Working) +6 XP, allows 1 smith
- Iron Smithy (Iron Working) +12 XP, allows 1 smith
- Steel Smithy (Steel) +10 XP, allows 1 smith
- Obelisk (Mysticism) +2 culture
- Library (Writing) +25% science, +2 culture, allows 1 scientist
- Walls (Masonry) +50% defence
- Burial Mound (Burial Grounds) +2 culture, allows 1 priest
- Temple (Polytheism) +1 :), allows 1 priest
- Caravan House (Currency & Urbanization) +10% gold, allows 1 merchant
- Barracks (Urbanization) +4 XP
- Grocer (Currency) +20% gold, +1 health from certain food
- Market (The Market) +25% gold, +1 happy from certain luxuries, allows 2 merchants
- Fortress (Siege Warfare & Construction) +100% defence, reduces collateral dmg
- Public Court (Code of Laws) -50% maintenance
- Palace (Aristocracy) default
- School (Education) +25% science, allows 1 scientist
- Amphitheatre (Architecture & Drama) default Theater
- Ancient Cathedral-Equivalents (Religion & Architecture) default Cathedrals
- Hospital (Medicine) +2 health
- Public Bath (Sanitation) +2 health, +1 health with incense
- Courthouse (Civil Laws) reduces war weariness
- Observatory (Astronomy) default

I think the map ahould be extended a little to the north, at least until it reaches the sea. The northern are is just too small...

And... what is Flaming Pigs?

An historically innacurate unit from Rome:Total War.

City Attack: I think only MED and HEA should get it. Archers and javelineers wouldn't really have a chance with battering rams. No shields means that they'd be killed before they get there (not possible to simulate that in CIV, but still).

Woodsman, Guerilla: I think it's possible to give a general combat bonus, not only a defense bonus. If that's possible, I think we should add that. I would remove the City Defence from Guerilla though.

Combat III, IV, V: I think these should only be available to MED, HEA, and CAV, in order to simulate the predominance of these units in the Imperial Migration Age.

Shock: Available to Heavy? I would remove HEA and add MSK there.

Good stuff.

And... what is Flaming Pigs?

You are right for city attack.

As far as I know, only defensive terrain bonus are implemented. We'll certainly be able to add general terrain bonus with a bit of modding. I'll look into it.

I'll change the later combat promos.

I'll remove heavy from shock, I dunno about MSK tho... vs Heavy bonus would be good but shock doesn't make sense.

Flaming pigs are... well, flaming pigs =) They would pour oils on pigs and lit them on fire, then drive them (or catapult them) toward the elephants to scare them off. They go berzerk and run off when they hear them squeal. It has never been proven tho, so it probably never happened.

I think the map ahould be extended a little to the north, at least until it reaches the sea. The northern are is just too small...



An historically innacurate unit from Rome:Total War.


Actually, no ones really sure. It's alleged that the roman used them at the BC 275 battle of Beneventum to scare of Pyrrhus' elephants. It was probably only flaming scorpions/ballista arrows tho. We can probably remove it, but I always found that funny =)

Ok, I've finally made my map playable.

However, I still need to work on the forests and add resources. Starting pos should be near perfect.

The map is a lot bigger than expected... And it's supposed to be smaller than the Civ3 large map, weird. Is is too big? I can rescale, but i'll have to redo all the rivers =(

TAM Map (Large) - work in progress (http://www.3s-studios.com/Karhgath/The%20Ancient%20Mediterranean%20(large).Civ4WorldB uilderSave)

Shouldn't temples give culture?

Do all I need to do to load this mod is download v 0.9...Are there any other versions that I need to downloaded with this? ...Do I need any other unique files beyond the newest patch to play TAM.....Also I saw the previous meesages about someone else having trouble getting this to work.....It still is not real clear to me how to get this working...Since I am a computer novice, could someone kindly spell out step by step what to do once the mod has been downloaded...where to put it, etc...Thank you so much in adavance for your help

DR J

Do all I need to do to load this mod is download v 0.9...Are there any other versions that I need to downloaded with this? ...Do I need any other unique files beyond the newest patch to play TAM.....Also I saw the previous meesages about someone else having trouble getting this to work.....It still is not real clear to me how to get this working...Since I am a computer novice, could someone kindly spell out step by step what to do once the mod has been downloaded...where to put it, etc...Thank you so much in adavance for your help

DR J

You only need to download this MOD, nothing else. Unzip it into your Civilization folder. The best way to launch it is to double-click the TAM map in your PublicMaps folder.

Shouldn't temples give culture?

I want to make culture producing buildings such as Burial Mound, Holy Site, and Obelisk more prominent.

I can see the point in that, but having temples not give culture is just weird - what other buildings have contributed as strongly to peoples sense of cultural identity as places of worship thru history?

Well, I gues you're right.

I'm getting my forums confused I think... but didn't someone mention that coastal cities should be considered closer to the palace for upkeep costs? Actually I'm pretty sure it was in Apolyton now that I think of it. But I suggested giving harbor improvement a reduced maintenance for the city.

Interesting point. But it shouldn't be more than 10% I think.

For the MOD can you produce different size maps for preference like a standard map or a huge map? will that be available?

I'm curious too. I also like using the Marathon turn mod as well as the Huge landmass.

I'll look into it. Right now, the mod only offers one standard-size scenario (the map that comes with it). We've got another map nearly ready, which is large and covers more of Europe.

Once we've completed the main mod work, we're going to look into making MOD-specific map scripts, which will allow you to play on random maps.

I'm getting my forums confused I think... but didn't someone mention that coastal cities should be considered closer to the palace for upkeep costs? Actually I'm pretty sure it was in Apolyton now that I think of it. But I suggested giving harbor improvement a reduced maintenance for the city.

why ? On what basis... it might apply if the capital was itself a port, but otherwise I don't see why a port should cost less maintenance. Actually I would say it should cost even more because of the docks, harbor, arsenal etc.

I just checked the XML. It seems to be possible to give modifiers for certain terrains. What I don't know is whether that modifier also applies when that terrain has a feature on top of it.

Thus: Does Spearman on Forest with fighting bonus on flatlands mean:
Grassland +0%
Spearman Bonus on Grassland +25%
Forest Bonus +25%

Or does the grassland bonus go away when it has a feature? Gotta check that out.

Also, it seems to be possible to make units be built more quickly with a certain resource. Thus the idea of making all units available but giving those with the right resources a distinct advantage would work out.

I think they would stack. Takes forest hills for example: the defense bonus is 75%, 50% of forest + 25% of hills.

On the cavarly

1. They didnt have stirrups
2. There idea of saddles were really just a blanket around the horse

This made the knight style lance charges in-practicle the weapons that the companions of alexander fought with were more like spears and were used for cutting rather than thrusting. The romans cavalry werent roman they were made up of mercenaryies and tribesmen. The romans didnt use cavarly as a standard part of there army till well in the last days of the empire and they were only really copies of every other power of the day namely the sasiad persians. They could never really be called "good" they were a death spasm twitch to the increasing prevalance of mounted horse archers.

Otherwise its a execcelent mod with some truly origanal concepts making use of the flexibility of civ 4

:king:

I think they would stack. Takes forest hills for example: the defense bonus is 75%, 50% of forest + 25% of hills.

Both Forests and Hills are features. So feature + feature stacks. What about terrain + feature? I would assume that it does stack, but maybe not... We gotta try. ;)

On the cavarly

1. They didnt have stirrups
2. There idea of saddles were really just a blanket around the horse

This made the knight style lance charges in-practicle the weapons that the companions of alexander fought with were more like spears and were used for cutting rather than thrusting. The romans cavalry werent roman they were made up of mercenaryies and tribesmen. The romans didnt use cavarly as a standard part of there army till well in the last days of the empire and they were only really copies of every other power of the day namely the sasiad persians. They could never really be called "good" they were a death spasm twitch to the increasing prevalance of mounted horse archers.

Otherwise its a execcelent mod with some truly origanal concepts making use of the flexibility of civ 4

:king:

bright day
Ahem Nobilis means rider... And gallic saddle was good, better than eastern saddles some would argue. Plus this althist ;).

hey thamis,
When will you release a new version?? (Without the faces of Sid:crazyeye: )

why ? On what basis... it might apply if the capital was itself a port, but otherwise I don't see why a port should cost less maintenance. Actually I would say it should cost even more because of the docks, harbor, arsenal etc.

On the basis that it is easier/faster to reach a coastal city with news/orders thus the distance penalty of city maintenance should be lower. Since no city improvement in CIV costs more maintenance, the added costs of running the harbor don't apply with the new game model.

hey thamis,
When will you release a new version?? (Without the faces of Sid:crazyeye: )

Will take a while (I guess 2 or 3 weeks is a good guesstimate). We gotta replace everything that links to the technology tree in any way (which is nearly everything).

The Sid faces will be one of the later things, because it's just artwork, not gameplay.

hey thamis,
When will you release a new version?? (Without the faces of Sid:crazyeye: )


And what's wrong with Sid's face?;)

Thamis
Don't rush because people are anxious to get new version out (including me), use as long time as it takes to get it ready. Your work is just amazing. Best mod I've played. :)

And what's wrong with Sid's face?;)

Thamis
Don't rush because people are anxious to get new version out (including me), use as long time as it takes to get it ready. Your work is just amazing. Best mod I've played. :)

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!we are one year closer to the future!:scan:

I agree that quality is overall better than the time it takes,:goodjob:

although i am dying to get my hands on this mod i can bite my fingers till it arrives:cry:

Thamis i just wanted to say, im learning the program Maya (something like 3dxmax) which i can soon help create future artwork for the project!(leader heads):mischief:

i purchased the Lynda.com video for it soo i am going to learn it in a jippie and will soon go to work on helping the mod.

Happy New Year!

[QUOTE=Masada]On the cavarly

"1. They didnt have stirrups
2. There idea of saddles were really just a blanket around the horse

companions of alexander fought with were more like spears and were used for cutting rather than thrusting."
The highly effective Numidian cavalry rode up to the footsoldiers and threw spears from horseback.

"The romans cavalry werent roman they were made up of mercenaryies and tribesmen."

Not quite right. Indeed, early in Roman history, it was possession of the wealth to buy a horse and fight as cavalry that gave rise to the "knights" or Equites order.


"The romans didnt use cavarly as a standard part of there army till well in the last days of the empire"

Caesar fought against cavalry to win at Phillippi. 4 Centuries before end of Empire. And they were Romans.

Hi,

Ancient Mediterranean is my favorite mod in Civ3. Now I will try it in Civ4, thanks for your efforts.

Hittite civilization is not listed, is it possible to include them in the coming patches? Or can I add them myself?

Regards.

Sorry, after installation I saw that you already included Hittites.

Hello all and happy new year.

Karhgath, does it really make sense to give spearmen (and HEA in general) a bonus against mounted skirmishers? Well if you're a hoplite or macedonian phalangist or a post Marius legionaire (better armour and shield), I don't think you've any advantage over a Scythian or Parthian horse archer... Thinking, like Crassus did, that one day or the other the archer will run out of arrows is a dangerous way of thinking...

On your javelineer over archer argument, a javelin might be more powerful than an arrow (though one might wonder when it comes from a composite or longbow), but first of all you'll have to close on the archer. Hastati and legionaries used deadly pilla, granted, but those were phalanx killers more than archer killers. To kill archers, you need to get close first... better be on a horse for that (and the better the armour, the higher your chances to survive... though... Agincourt comes to my mind, sometimes it's a bad idea anyway).

No it's not, when you look at it that way, I didn't put the bonus at first. However, consider that, for a spearman to kill a horse archer, he'll eventually have to get close, because if he doesn't, he'll have 0 chance to kill it. Since spearman are heavy units, with tons of armor, shields and a very long reach, if they do get in reach, the horse archer have no chance... Compared to a swordsman, the spearman has more chance, no? It might not be substancial tho, and since they are slower it might just negate it...

Maybe +10% all the way to pikeman against MSK instead of +25%, or maybe no bonus at all?

BTW, the holidays are over, so I'm kicking in the high gear and I should have the units and promos done today in xml, or so I hope.

BTW, based on the Promotion and Traits mod, adding terrain defense for grass only works on grass tiles without forests or hills, so we'll be able to give spearman +defense on flatlands without problems.

BTW, based on the Promotion and Traits mod, adding terrain defense for grass only works on grass tiles without forests or hills, so we'll be able to give spearman +defense on flatlands without problems.

Cool! :) That's really good news.

Hi Thamis,
Thanks for doing such a great job with TAM. I enjoyed it very much in Civ III.
I just go Civ IV for Christmas and downloaded TAM today - .09. Thing is
the starting Techs still aren't there. Did I do something wrong. I did notice
it says .08 on the screen but that still should have fixed the problem per the notes?
Anyhow, any help would be appreciated.

Which CIV did you pick?

On the basis that it is easier/faster to reach a coastal city with news/orders thus the distance penalty of city maintenance should be lower. Since no city improvement in CIV costs more maintenance, the added costs of running the harbor don't apply with the new game model.

like I said: how is it faster to reach a coastal city from the capital if the capital is not coastal itself ? Again, unless the capital is a port itself a coastal city should be treated like all others.
On another note, coastal city already have the advantage of harbor increasing trade routes revenues by 50%, which already makes them cost less than inland cities.
Also your answer about added costs of running the harbor makes as much sense as me replying that in the game model there is no news/orders or couriers and therefore all your reasoning is void.

I think the increased trade route revenue already offsets the maintenance reduction we're talking about. No need to change harbours. :)

Which CIV did you pick?
The Romans and the Egyptians for sure. Maybe one other.
Thanks.

This map is great. I love the civs and the flags. I noticed, however, that there are no modern day natural resources! I realize this is supposed to be about the ANCIENT Med, but this map is extremely well done and I think it could be used for any random vanilla game. Consider adding oil, aluminum, and uranium, just for players like me who might use this map outside of the mod.

- TECH: Tech rate is slower, especially in later eras. Should be impossible to get to Industrial Era now


Not sure about this one. My friend and I are on the verge of replaceable parts and it's not even the 19th century. Then again, we are playing on "quick" mode. Maybe you're right though. We havn't actually finished the game.

Hi Folks,

I'm a Roman archaeologist in my real life. At my university I have to teach an intro to Roman culture class frequently, and I think the TAM mod might be a way for me to use play to teach. Is anybody out there doing this sort of thing? I'd rather be playing Civ than teaching, so if I can use civ to teach, then I'd be killing two birds with one stone.

Anyway, a more 'appropriate' reason for why I want to do this is that I think a few rounds of Civ could help me clear up some problems for my students, and get them to better appreciate and understand the past.

To take an example, they tend to imagine that during the year of the Four Emperors (AD 69), it was fairly easy for the competing emperors to get to Rome, and straighten everything out; the history books tend to underemphasize the messiness of these wars... If I could get them playing on the TAM map, and battling it out from the different Emperors' power bases (Vespasian for instance had to march on Rome from the Levant, while keeping Judea and Parthia in check), I think they'd have a better understanding of just how difficult it was to keep the empire going....

I'm reading all the different posts here on civfanatics about creating scenarios and mods and such like, but if there was anybody out there interested in maybe developing some scenarios like I imagine, I'd be grateful!

Thanks everyone

@DoctorG:

Once we're done with the groundwork for TAM, it will be very easy to make such scenarios. Right now the biggest problem is me not having very much time to work on it.

You could also use the CIV3 version of TAM, which is complete, and quickly make such a scenario in the editor. That's really easy.

This map is great. I love the civs and the flags. I noticed, however, that there are no modern day natural resources! I realize this is supposed to be about the ANCIENT Med, but this map is extremely well done and I think it could be used for any random vanilla game. Consider adding oil, aluminum, and uranium, just for players like me who might use this map outside of the mod.Just adding resources in the World Builder should be easy enough to do yourself - the interface is fairly transparent.

Bright day
Q: Kael from FfH has negative (gained in fight) and temporary promotions. Would it be possible to make it so that SKI "break formations" of HEA and MED? That way HEA could still be juggernauts and be vulnerable...?

I am waiting with baited breath for this one to be completed... ;)

( I do not post often so that should say a good bit as well)

I'm close to releasing the Illyrian civilization which would work to make this mod more historically accurate and fun :)

I'de be delighted if it was included.

Send me the info when it's done.

Hi everyone!
I just read the 20 pages of posts , and I am so happy TAM will be done for Civ 4!!!
I could translate everything u need to be french, if its not already done...
I have a LOT of time, so i would also absolutely love to help with anything else!!
I'll download the MOD and give it a try in a minute!
:) :) :)

I have been of exams and cannot have advanced very much, but the engaged thing is debt, here I leave to you the civilopedia for the Iberian tribes, the text in English is full of errors, he would be grateful that some native Englishman / American was correcting them, before any doubt that he wants to express the text he can write a message asking about it.

Civilopedia


Civilopedia.

Iberia is the name whereupon the Greeks designated earth located in the limits of the known world, lived by a great variety of tribes. These tribes were divided as well in three great blocks: iberians, celts and celtiberians.

The iberians arrived around year 3000BC at the peninsula,they formed part of the great migration block of indoeuropeans, occupied the Eastern part of this one and the south of France, their villages were located in the coast . Thanks to their proximity to the sea, they had great outer influences, most remarkable of which are: the Greek, the Phoenician, and the Carthaginian. The celtiberians occupied the central plateau of the peninsula, they were soldiers with a wild mentality who offered a great resistance to the Roman empire, its more important city was Numantia. Celts arrived at Spain in the year 1000 BC in two migratory waves. They dominated the north and the east of the peninsula...

Its diversity would consist of aspects such as its preference for the monarchic governments in the south (where a divine origin was attributed to the kings) and of an aristocratic-oligarchical character in the east and north (where the tribes were commanded by a leader, attended by a Council);by the variants in ceramics or the differents buildings. Its unit, of cultural and social type, is pronounced in the religion, where the different pantheons from Gods have similar characteristics and relations with the nature (they practiced the cult to the Sun, the Moon and the Bull); in the funeral ritual of incineration and deposit of the rest in ballot boxes; in the artistic iconography of these towns, animalist and anthropomorphous character; in its vocation single-breasted uniform jacket... The socioeconómicas inequalities within the tribes and between such towns did not diminish their anxiety of front common independence and against the colonizadores towns, although the unificate tendencies, favoring therefore the successive conquests did not fructify during century III a.C., first of Carthage and, few years later, Rome..

The Iberian language is known by the inscriptions on lead, ceramics, coins, stone ... written with specific signs. It presents the characteristics of the Mediterranean languages previous to the Greek, the Latin or the Celtic dialects, all of the Indo-European group. It is a very ancient language of that other well-known testimonies do not stay, hence, the difficulty of his translation. It was used in an area understood between the average vale of the Guadalquivir and the river Hérault (France). At present it is not possible to decipher the meaning of an Iberian text, the made investigations on this matter only have managed to discover the phonetic meaning of the symbols, that is to say, we can read the Iberian language but not understand it.

The Iberian art is the synthesis of the tradition, the Mediterranean influence and the penetration of the Central European culture. It developed in the period of the V-I century B.C. and showed a top creative potency in the regions meridionale. In architecture it is characterized by the use of the system adintelado with arches and vaults by approach of courses and by the use of colossal tackle for the fortifications. As typical constructions it is necessary to quote the cities walled with defensive lookouts erected on acropolis as that of Azaila. Other interesting remains are the walls of the Peak of Alcoy, the town of San Antonio of Calaceite and the colossal walls of Tarragona and Ampurias. The graves were communal and the ashes were keeping in urns that were placed in underground cameras, which were communicating with the exterior across secret brokers. Also there are important the sanctums, of Greek influence, where there have been important pieces of sculpture as part of the funeral trousseau. The sculpture had a notable level. They emphasize priestesses' figures of funeral character that accuse the influence of the archaic Greek art and púnico. As notable examples we quote the checkers of Elche, of the Hill of the Saints and of Trick. Also there stand out the votive offerings realized mostly in bronze that human and animal types represent, especially of the bull, of the horse and of the lion. Also they emphasize fantastic animals as the snake of balazote or bull androcéfalo that it accuses Mesopotamian influence. As for the applied arts, they emphasize the ceramics, of vegetable or animal decoration, or of geometric character with reminiscences of Greece; in any case a marked tendency exists to the reduction and to the abstraction that is made clear in the ceramics and in the treasures as that of Jávea.

In reference to the divinity the Iberians think that the top forces communicate with the alive ones across the forefathers and take animal or human forms of gods and goddesses. The winged representations and the worship realized in caves give to understand that they place his gods in the celestial sphere and in the underground world. Spaces exist constructed to celebrate the sacred community worships. His typology adapts itself to his emplacement, urban or rural, and to the epoch of his construction. In the first moment there are courtyards opencast and stores for the gifts and, further on, there are constructed temples (The Hill of the Saints).

It was doing the 8th century aC there put themselves on contact with the most oriental inhabitants of the Iberia the Greeks, who establish commercial colonies, the most important of the what ones it is an Emporion (current Empúries). Soon they are the Phoenicians those who settle in the south of the Peninsula, his principal commercial city is Gadir (current Cadiz). Of these first contacts the most important is that of the Phoenicians with the tribe turdetana considered the most developed culturamente and technologically of the Peninsula, since it allows the appearance of the urban life and the development of a powerful indústria of the iron.

With the entry of the foreign peoples, the Iberians started minting currency (IInd century B.C.). All the coins turned out to be inscribed with Iberian characters, with the name of his issuing center, although later they were bilingual. The minted topics were those of the colonial currency and they were repeating the Pegasus or the sphinx. The coins were taking often in the obverse the head of a divinity; the reverse, on the other hand, was changing very much (gentlemen with spears or palms, horses without rider or sea horses). Up to the reign of Nerón, the Hispanic municipalities kept on minting proper currency. The population stayed free up to the beginning of the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula for the Carthaginians (237 aC) against that they put up big resistance, like in beleaguered Sagunto (219aC). Quite and this way it was not possible to conquer most of the north and the peninsular northeast. During the punic wars(219-206 aC) the Romans and the Carthaginians divided his support between. After winners finished these wars, the Romans, they imposed an exploitative politics, fact that propitiated the raising of the whole Iberia in weapon. The Iberian oriental tribes, romanizated lot of time ago did not present big resistance, with the exception of the ilergetan, where Índibil and Mardonio were during a lot of time an inconvenience in the region. The tribes, central, western and northern were different to sing. Viriato, leader of the tribe of the lusitans raised in weapon the whole western region, up to the point of the biggest threat being considered for the interests of Rome in the world, on the other hand in the central part the capital of the árevacos: Numantia, was resisting and cause painful and surprising defeats, to all the Roman hosts that were daring to enter his territory.

With the death to treachery of Viriato, only it was staying in foot the most churlish north and Numantia, turned this one in the first target of Rome. Six periods of five years Numantia resisted, in big numerical inferiority, the Roman attacks, before the blush of the situation (the numantians llegarón to capture a Roman banner), the Roman council decided that his best general would lead the attacked piece of news: Escipión Emiliano. This one supervised by 60.000 soldiers constructed the first provisional line of fortifications about the city. Agger et fossa, terrace and pit, which they served as defense the legionaries that meters behind were constructing the real line of siege consisting of a stone wall with towers of alertness and platforms for the artillery. In the small city there were approximately 10.000 persons with not more than 4.000 suitable men for the defense. A struggle from 1 to 15. When the piled up provisions had become exhausted, a numantian, a hero called Retogenes, supervised by a team of patrolling, went out of the city and, managing to liberate the Roman lines of siege, to come up to the nearby population of Lutia where they asked for help. 400 young people they joined, but Escipión Emiliano informed by his spies, came to Lutia and captured brave those whom he punished amputating both hands. While, in Numantia, the women were cooking skins to feed the population, but the sanitary shortcomings made appear such a fearsome pest that spread rapidly being fattened in exhausted defenders. When it was already not staying to cheat the famine the numantians ate up to the corpses and when the majority of the inhabitants had already died of famine or for illnesses they decided to vote what his end would be. That assembly of living bogeys met for last time to decide democratically what to do. And it was decided that each one was free to do what he wanted. At midday, from the Roman lines one saw Numantia burning turned into a gigantic pyre. With scarcely you force in his punished bodies limited to bone and pelt, the numantians give themselves death throwing itself to the flames, throwing itself from the walls to the cliff or fixing to him his sword. When the Romans enter the smoky city scarcely they can believe what they see. Only a few hundreds of numantians have not wanted or cannot have escaped to the defeat and wait knocked down in the soil, without forces to get up. Escipión Emiliano has big problems to choose to the captive fifties that him will remain chained to his car the day of his Victory in Rome.

With the fall of Numantia symbol of the Iberian resistance, there is finished the pacification of the Iberia (100 aC). Only areas of the north continue without romanizated, minor strategic someone, and in general the Iberian civilization dies.

What about Dacia?

Thanks for the post, SV!

Dacia = Getae.

Thanks for the post, SV!

Dacia = Getae.

I'm preparing a document more better, I waste a lot of time in this document, it have images,civilopedia, important things for modeling, capacities of units...

Have not I still had left very clear the units promotion, at the moment I have done this division ¿ It is well?

Caetratii ( Iberian name, Basic Infantery)
Light Lancer-- Promotion to-- Heavy Lancer
Peltastas.---Promotion to-- Iberian guerrilla
Scutatii ( Heavy Infantery)---Promotion to ---Devout(elit infantery)
Turdetan Cavalry (A archer-javalineer cavalry)--- Promotion to--- Cantabrian Cavalry ( Heavy Cavalry)
Slingers--- Unique Unit---



In Iberian civilization like all the occidental civs, the archer doesn't exist, the war of guerrilas was very bad for the archers because in the mountains ravines etc ... to operate an arch was difficult, in oriental civs on the other hand the archers had a high consideration in the army.

hello,
i will prepare a document about "Dacia" for civilopedia, leaders, flag and all important stuff related to it.
if anyone already strated this, please tell me so we can join forces :king:

OJi.
:goodjob:

Must have Nubia! Or Pharoah will release his chariots upon thee!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Hi Thamis!

I looked at the techinfo XML, but there is no reference in there to the religions "given" with the tech discoveroes... So I looked at wich techs were suggested by ADVISOR_RELIGION... I got a REAL big list. some of them I'm not sure if it was wanted or not (City State for instance, and Aristocratie, wich is still less bizare than City state...)
I tried to work out a "basic" list:

Animism: Nature Cult
Mesopotamian: Mysticism
Monotheism: Judaism... of course
Christianity: Christianity...
Egyptian: not sure... I thought maybe Polytheism, OR priesthood, since the Priests cast