Get it! (http://www.jan.vandercrabben.name/tam/civ4/tamdev/TAM_v1.99b.exe)

Including many new graphics, new Salt ressource, a new normal map, new Smithy event, new promotions, and various balancing adjustments, this version is the ground work for TAM v2.0, wich will be the final Vanilla release, and will include new civics, new techtree, and much more.

Wow... exciting! :)

So pleased to see a new version up and more to come!

:goodjob:

This is good news. Thanks Laurino.

This is good news. Thanks Laurino.

My pleasure, but I was not alone working, our whole team is back on the mod, with also many new members, be sure to check the loadscreen:)

Now here's the changelist:

IMPROVEMENTS

- Windmills are gone from TAM
- Farm can now be built on hills, but hill farms don't carry irrigation

RESSOURCES

- Stone revealed from the start
- Timber revealed from start
- Salt Ressource added, used by building to improve commerce
- Bananas removed

ACTION

- Forest chopping moved to Copper Working
- Imperial Roads now added, working a bit like Vanilla Railroads

PROMOTIONS

- Navigation promotions availavle from start to naval units
- Navigation III promotion added, giving +2 movement

GFX

- 100% working GameFonts
- New boat models
- New Falxman model
- New building/wonders models
- New Static movies for TAM wonders
- New animated Leaderheads

TEXTS

- All main tags correctly linked
- Italian translation improved
- French translation improved

CITIES

- City graphics scale boosted

UNITS

- Scouts moved to Hunting
- Armored Javelineers moved to Wood Working, still requires Bronze Working

BUILDINGS

- Lighthouse moved to Boat Building
- Great Lighthouse moved to Boat Building, still requires masonry
- Pallissades moved to Copper Working, requires Wood working
- Caravan house now with Urbanization, still requires Currency
- Winery now 10% commerce, no more GP points

SOUND

- All units linked to "proper" group language
- New MainScreen music
- Correctly linked diplomacy music

MAP ADJUST

- 3 Mediterranean maps with Salt

SOLVED BUGS

- All units linked properly
- Tech icons displaying right
- Religion Tech Icon fixed
- Unit Combat icons linked properly

~~~~~ :goodjob: ~~~~~

The link at the top is bad. I'll check the main thread.

edit - works now

Just uploaded the link, we had some adjustments to make. All is workin fine now:)

:) I edited as you posted. Thanks.

That's really good new. TAM is one of my favourite mod. I think CIV really suit the ancient times.

Thank you all

i hope this isnt the final vanilla tam version. a nice flashy scenario but very boring. i never see any wars and everybody pretty much stays cautious or annoyed with you the entire time. ive lost interest in this mod fast due to this duldrom.

2.0 will be the last Vanilla release, and real scenarios will come afterwards. Once BTS work starts, we can always make adjustment to Vanilla, but no bnig worked will be devoted to it.

Thanks for the update! This has been since the early days of Civ3 and continues to be one of my favorite modifications!

hi,

i´m happy to see that this Modu continues.
I have uploaded it to rapidshare...
So it´s alway available

http://rapidshare.com/files/43031485/TAM_v1.99b.exe

I had a chance to try out the new version. Very nice!

I'm happy to see that you incorporated much of my additions to the Normal map.

I haven't checked the huge map yet, but that already had some of my recommendations in it.

I love the new graphics and the new leader heads! I usually choose single unit graphics, but these are so nice, that I've left them on. The six phalanx formation for the Greeks is very representative.

As for this mod being boring...what??? I just started a game as the Romans (primarily since they are in the heart of the region where most of my recent recommendations were made) and on the Monarch setting, with raging barbs, this is not boring my friends! I am currently at ~1500 BC. Teuta has been at war with either or both Decebal and Agamemnon the whole game so far. Vercingetorix and Arminius have also already been at war most of the game. It's early on, true, but that's allot of combat!

Also, as the Romans, I've expanded to capture all of the Northern Italian peninsula and settled the city location SE of Rome (near the ankle of the boot if you will). My economy is slowing down, but still around 60-70% research. I'm on Epic, have completed stonehenge and am working on building a great engineer at another city to get the Sphinx as well. I fully expect to be in a Naval war with Agamemnon and/or Dido shortly. I can also fully expect to be at war with Vercingetorix at some point.

Once those wars are won, and once I have all of the Italian Peninsula and possibly Carthage and a city on the Island of Sicily, then it's off to conquering the rest of the cities on the Med.

Hardly expect that to be boring, a rather decent challenge even in this Mod on Monarch.

Babylonian Archers are overpowered and should have their +15% vs. cities removed.

I know it's a bit drastic but hear me out. I recently played 3 games as Babylon in order to test this out, and every test came to the same conclusion. In the first 100 Turns, the Babylonian UU is unequaled in power. The only reasonable counter is a Spearman unit, but the AI (and players) will hold off on that tech until ones such as Wheel, Animal Husbandry and Agriculture are finished.

Now, the Babylonian UU get +1 Strength and +15% vs. city attack over standard archery units. This is essentially a vanilla Archer with +15% vs. cities. That's not bad, but you have to factor in two other things:

1) They also receive a free Drill I
2) Warriors do not receive a +25% city bonus

The balance in Vanilla civ is that a fully fortified Warrior receives +25% from being fortified and +25% for being in a city. This means that, without promotions, an Archer attacking a Warrior in a city is a coin flip on who will win.

Adding a +15% to this isn't game breaking per se, since it should only bring the odds up to around 57-43 in the attacking Archer's favor. However, in TAM, warriors lose the 25% city bonus and the Babylonian Archer receives 2-3 First Strikes without any promotions. This shifts the odds to roughly 70%-30% in favor of the attacking Babylonian Archer. Javileneers are only slighty better since Archery units receive a bonus vs. Skirmisher units.

Now, applying this to a Mediterranean world map, which is the point of this mod, the smart player will do the following.

1) Beeline to Archery
2) Build Hero, take Persepolis and any other Persian cities. This eliminates their nasty UU before they can grab it.
3) Conquer Media
4) Conquer Phonecia, only keeping their coastal cities. The inland cities usually suck.

Now, Babylon controls the entire fertile crescent with Hittites and Kolchians being a minimal nuisance in expansion. This is even worse in the provided Huge map, since conquering those 3 civs essentially gives Babylon 20% of the entire map to expand into with only Barbarians to worry about. The fix is to remove the +15% vs. city attack, which leaves the odds in favor of the Babylonian Archer but not overpoweringly so.

EDIT: Please realize this will be even worse in any BTS adaptation of the mod. The player will take Persepolis and use it's stone to build the Great Wall, making them immune to Barbarians.

EDIT 3: I also forgot to mention Collateral Damage which makes the cumulative efforts of the archers much worse.

Heros should be more expensive. I find that I sacrifice them often since I know it's cost is not balanced with the promotions they receive and their relative strength.

I'm hoping to see Heroes become something different in the future. Good feedback on Babylon.... I'll go give it a try.... but it seems like you'd end up crashing your economy if you did as outlined above. I personally found that I always take out Babylon too quickly playing as Media or Persia.

I'm hoping to see Heroes become something different in the future. Good feedback on Babylon.... I'll go give it a try.... but it seems like you'd end up crashing your economy if you did as outlined above. I personally found that I always take out Babylon too quickly playing as Media or Persia.

On Monarch and lower difficulty, crashing your economy in the first 300-400 turns (on Epic speed) doesn't matter since you can carve out a very specific tech path in order to facilitate tech trade and backfill.

One other thing, the Briton's stone needs to be more accessible. They are always beaten to Stonehenge, and the historical inaccuracy annoys me.

TAM needs a settlers map like RFC has. I am willing to help out with the creation of one. However, I will not take responsibility for the entire project.

Can you remove the limit on how many XP points a unit can receive from Barbs?

Can you remove the limit on how many XP points a unit can receive from Barbs?


I've got a whole slew of ideas in process that incorporates gaining more XP from Barbs.... personally I think that the civs that have to face the endless hordes deserve a far greater reward than at present.

I'm actually hoping to see the early part of the game become more about survival than expansion.

It's better to start small, then go big. I would hate to see a barb-heavy Carthage become impossible to crack by Rome.

That's about balancing though..... and Carthage has to survive it first. Rome might not get the extra experienced troops early on, but it still has the Legionary to rely on.

Anyway, that's the Med map scenario you are talking about (I tend to use it as a reference point too) ..... however, the primary idea is to balance it as a mod first, and then deal with the scenarios accordingly.

I dunno, when the title is "The Ancient Mediterranean", the scenario you're modding is rather specific.

EDIT: Granaries should give +1:health: for Flax.

I'm not sure that you understood what I meant. :)

"The Ancient Mediterranean" is being designed as a frame. Thus, as many people do, you can play it on a random map. The kind of balancing you need to achieve needs to work on random maps. The frame can then be used to "hang" scenarios from it.

For scenarios, you can balance things to specifically adhere to the constraints of that scenario. The Ancient Mediterranean Small/Normal/Huge maps are all scenarios, just as the Fertile Crescent and Magna Graecia are. The constraints of the Ancient Med scenario is, for example, the safe inner and dangerous outer med and the relative risk v reward of civ locations.

Thus, the removal of the xp cap would be for the mod frame itself and balanced accordingly, then you could further balance the current Ancient Med scenarios to ensure that while Carthage and Egypt, Persian and Media get a significant reward from their barb killing centuries, it doesn't overpower them against the other civs.

"The Ancient Mediterranean" is being designed as a frame mod.

Really? Because every post I've seen by Thamis and Laurino indicates that this mod is restricted to the 3000BC-400AD time frame centered around the Mediterranean Ocean. However, if you could show me where they have said otherwise, I would stand corrected. :p

You'll just have to trust me.... I have direct replies from Laurino in MSN and on the Tam Dev board to "support" what I am saying! ;)

Just look at the other 2 scenarios to get my drift..... and also the new thread regarding potential scenarios..... once the mod is "done" we are looking to evolve scenarios from it.... obviously it is going to be associated with the ancient world - I was not disputing that.... but I was trying to impress upon you the idea that it is not simply constrained to the current ancient med map... that is, by definition, a scenario.

The Urbanization Civilopedia entry lists Currency twice in the "leads to" section.

@whitefire

Nice knowing that you are a TAM fan.

I sure agree with you about the Babylonian archer, though I am actually the kind of guy who goes up to bronze working to get spearmen quite early. In TAM I am not in haste for improvement specific techs. They take too long and barbs would already be at door so early.

One thing you brought about is mentioning the great wall. Hopefully we won’t have it in TAM. This is something that I was actually going to suggest on tamdev board as we prepare for BTS version.

Other things that we will need to deal with when working for BTS are great generals, and the corporations system. I like the idea of implementing heroes as special great generals. I also would like heroes to be acquired through a different process maybe as a result for building a shrine as defenders of the faith, or by building a special national wonder for each civ.

About implementing the RFC settlers’ maps idea in a scenario for TAM, this is actually one thing that I discussed with Laurino. In fact we were talking about more of RFC than just settlers’ maps. Including starting dates, stability system, and the plague. So of course any help you offer (even if little as I know you are quite loaded) will be much appreciated.

Ahhh I finally grasped what you meant by the RFC Settlers map.... slow today I'm afraid.... and I am very glad that is a step closer to being implemented.... it would really help with authenticity. When balancing between fun and history.... fun must come first, but if there's a nice little guiding hand to make it historical too, then I am all for it. It's going to be a bugger to research though! :D

Still, I guess the mod comes first before working on the scenarios! :)

@ Whitefire:
I played with your Bab Archer strategy once, and decided to leave Babylon to the AI. I was too tempted to grab a huge chunk of land too quickly.

@Spearthrower:
Regarding the Bab Archer, I'd like to suggest that they act like a protective civ in terms of their UU as per vanilla civ 4. Meaning, ok, give them the +1 str, but rather than the +15 vs. cities, give them the city garrison and drill 1 promo. This makes them a strong city defender, but also a potential conquest unit, but just less effective then as built now. Is this doable?

Regarding England and Stonehenge:
I agree, but only in the context of the Huge Med map scenario. (I think that's the instance you were discussing anyway.)

Personally, it's hard for me to consider playing this mod outside of the pre-made maps. I never get a random game that approaches the fun factor associated with the pre-made maps.

Concerning BtS:
I agree with doing away with the Great Wall when this moves to BtS. However, I would love to keep the espionage and corporate elements (if possible-Rome, Greece, and the Phonecians all used some early form of corporations in managing their economic empires...and we all know that spies and assassins were running around in the classical era.)

Concerning the AI:
On Monarch level, the AI does indeed rush for Spearmen for city defense in my games. I have even seen some civs go for Chariots as an active defense approach. I believe that some civs tend to make better choices than other civs, regarding their military. Phonecia, for example is like 9/10 times likely to play itself like a builder, and hence usually is slow going on defensive units. All that keeps me from taking them out early is the impact to my economy. Hittites love their chariots, but on the flip side, they don't put spearmen in their stacks to protect them. Greece seems to act appropriately.

I wonder if the AI isn't too focused on their hero unit? I also wonder whether BtS will fix some of the above issues.

I would eliminate the XP max for barbs. Its silly to me to have a cap since they still can kill your units and in some cases pose a huge risk to your civ.

I would eliminate the XP max for barbs. Its silly to me to have a cap since they still can kill your units and in some cases pose a huge risk to your civ.

I have brought this point up already - as far as I know, there will be some kind of change on this subject in the next version. Exactly how far has not been discussed, but the cap certainly needs to be raised. It makes very little sense to gain exp for killing 1 ai soldier and not another.

However, as I said already - Barbs need more troops and ones that become tougher. Killing tribal warriors becomes way too easy.

I've got a lot of ideas for terrain and barbs that I hope to see start being implemented in the future (for BtS version) that should make the early survival game a lot more interesting, challenging and realistic.

TAM needs a settlers map like RFC has. I am willing to help out with the creation of one. However, I will not take responsibility for the entire project.
i would be glad to donate the names of any major or minor ancient cities and their approximate location. i would edit the scenario in worldbuilder to include a couple starting cities per civ, but i'm so lame i cant even figure out how to do that

The RFC settlers' maps that whitefire referred to actually causes cities when built to assume historically accurate names according to their location. So if your settler built a map at the head of the Nile delta it will be named Memphis, while if it was built up the river it will be named Thebes.

For this to work however it would need a separate scenario for TAM that can't go within the main release for it doesn't work with random maps.

The RFC settlers' maps that whitefire referred to actually causes cities when built to assume historically accurate names according to their location. So if your settler built a map at the head of the Nile delta it will be named Memphis, while if it was built up the river it will be named Thebes.

For this to work however it would need a separate scenario for TAM that can't go within the main release for it doesn't work with random maps.

Actually, the settler's map governs the AI's preference on where to build cities. There is a separate city names map.

Hi all,

new to this forum but been playing CIV for a long time.
Since starting to play TAM (from 1.97 version) vanilla and warlords
doesn't have a chance. TAM is just great :rockon:
Thanks to all of you who made this mod :goodjob:

Q: Why does the game end at 330BC in the new 1.99B version ??
(Played Agamemnon, huge map, marathon game)
I looked forward to play until 500AD(something) as in 1.97 :cry:

The problem with the huge map will be solved in the next patch. For now here is a fixed map.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/upload...Huge_v1.99.rar

Thanks for your quick reply Kalimakhus !
But that link does not seem to work...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/115758/TAM_Mediterranean_Huge_v1.99.rar

Here is it again. I am sorry but it was actually working when I last tried it!

Got it now, thank you very much indeed ! :thanx:

Teuta has been at war with either or both Decebal and Agamemnon the whole game so far.

And how are my Illyrians faring? ;)


For the next version the 10 experience cap should be doubled to 20. Let's try that out for balance and see if anything needs to be changed ...

I think doubling the barbarian xp cap would help AI and those players who love micromanaging alot, it would be cool.


(But its easy to change yourself)

I've noticed a graphic bug in the latest release:

Sometimes, if a city has finished a building and the build screen pops up, the colours of the map and the inactive units change to greyish-black. Farms are black, cities are black and everything looks really ugly. Everytime this happens, i have to return to desktop (not main menu) and reload the game.

Unfortunately i was not able to post a screenshot since it turned out to be all black as well...

This is not actually a TAM related bug. It is a display card one. Also you can simply switch to the desktop (not exit - use the windows menu key) and return back to civ4, and the graphics will be refreshed.

Thanks for the info, Kali - I was having that same problem as well.

As for this - it's awesome! I'm loving TAM all over again, and I think that the small map is perhaps even more fun than the normal. Dido certainly has some great starting land!

And how are my Illyrians faring? ;)


For the next version the 10 experience cap should be doubled to 20. Let's try that out for balance and see if anything needs to be changed ...

Sorry to report that they fell to the combined pressure of Agamemnon, Rome, Arminius, and Decebal....Agamemnon has a royal thirst for Illyria in 9 out of 10 games so far. In fact, I can almost count on Agamemnon starting a war with Illyria, which is then followed by the Dacians piling on, with Rome to follow soon after, depending on how the war goes. Interestingly though, the Illyrian capital holds together for a very long time, but without additional cities, it eventually succumbs to the never ending conflicts and increasingly stronger invasions from its neighbors.

I admit that I am not a student of Illyrian history, but this almost sounds like what may have actually happened.

I did have one game, where Illyria actually managed to do very well against its neighbors and kept Agamemnon isolated in lower Greece, leaving the Macedonians with only three cities.

Rome in the hands of a Human is quite different than when played by the AI, however. We Humans are more aggressive than the AI. I've had games as Dido of Carthage, where Rome didn't declare against me, until I had already built up a nice city on Cicilia and the Islands west of Italy (sorry name escapes me atm). I've had other games where Rome doesn't ammount to much of a force at all.

I am not sure what causes this strange behavior. It's almost as if Rome has some preternatural fear of exerting its muscle.

I've downloaded and extracted the file but the mod doesn't load (I get the 'This program must close, we apologise for the inconvenience' message box), and pretty much all of the art files aren't there.

~Hiram.

which civ4 version do i need to play the current TAM v1.99b?
it's a rather obvious question i know, but i couldnt find any info on it at the download link or in the TAM setup (readme?) itself..
i suppose i'll ned 1.74, but just wanted to be sure..

Civ4 1.74 is ok ;)

i'll take you by your word - thanks. ;)

please tell me the next version will be for BTS!!!

I encounter a "99 turns left" around -908 :/

Any idea about how to manage it ?

(playing huge map marathon speed as Agamemnon, standard 1.99b scenario english version)