The Punic Wars

[sman1975]

Are you welcoming more ideas

Always. This is a collaboration site, so all ideas are welcome, and I know of several people following this thread who may also want to offer an opinion about anything discussed. So please, feel free to weigh in on anything.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

More ideas always welcome!

 

[sman1975]

Quick update. I'm sorry I haven't had any time to work this mod lately. Been tied down on other projects. Am trying to wrap things up in the next couple of days, so I can start working on this.

The first thing we need to nail down is the final list of playable civs and city states. I can't work on the map until this is finished. If you see any custom civs either on Steam or here, that you would think make good artwork for any of these playable civs, post a link here. We can "recycle" any artwork out there, as long as we give proper credit in the mod. So, even though the artwork isn't necessarily for the civ we want to add, we can still use it. This would be a great help to me, as I'm definitely NOT an artist. And if I have to create civ artwork, I can, but the results aren't always great, and it does take a lot of time. So please, if you see something that looks cool, I can bring it into the mod, update anything that doesn't look right, and move on to the next parts of the mod.

Thanks.

EDIT: As a reminder - here is the current proposed list of what what I think the arrangement of civs should be, based on the 132x61 sized map in post #16:


Playable civs:
1. Rome
2. Carthage
3. Ptolemies
4. Seleucids
5. Syracuse (although a 1 city civ, it has the possibility to expand, especially if we make a 1st Punic War scenario)
6. Massilia (same as Syracuse - especially into the Gaulic hinterlands)
7. Aetolian League
8. Athenian/Achaean League
9. Macedonia
10. Thrace
11. Pergamum Kingdom (could be a city state)
12. Illiricum


City States (17 total, although many of these will have more than one city):
1. Iberian Celts
2. Gauls
3. Cyprus
4. Eperius (could be a playable)
5. Caria
6. Bithnynia
7. Pontus
8. Paphlagonia
9. Galatia
10. Cappadocia
11. Nabatea
15. Lusitania

16. Massylii (aka Massinisa)
17. Masaesyli
18. Mauri
18. Numidia (further south than the 3 city states above: 16-18)
19. Cyrene/Libyans


Dropped (3):
12. Armenia
13. Arab Tribes
14. Palmyra

If anyone has time, could you research some basics of these civs, so we can get who the leaders should be for ALL of the civs above (even city states), and some ideas about the size of their militaries (number of troops/ships should be sufficient). As my time is really limited, I could use the help in gathering these kinds of data.

Also would appreciate any feedback on the new list, and also any recommend artwork in other mods that we should use for specific civs in the player list above. Thanks!

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Hey, I'm going through the workshop right now picking out mods, so I'll be updating this post as I find more.

JFD's Republic of Carthage

Rome Scipio Africanus

These are interesting for adding unique great people. The proconsul seems overly complicated for our purposes and both might be redundant if we go with your plan for great generals anyway. I like the upgrade to the quinquereme and the unique harbor for Carthage. Also the GG healing bonus. Looking at the comments it seemed someone had a problem with the Cothon not providing city connections but I feel like we can probably work around that since our cities are all premade.

Massalia

Syracuse

Not exactly historically accurate for us because they both feature earlier leaders, but whatever. I love the Syracusan abilities but I think Massalia's are pointless since they reward settling and exploration.

The Ptolemies

I can't really tell what the exact abilities are here so I'll have to look into that.

Hiram's Seleucid Empire and Pouakai's Seleucids

Again, anachronistic but I think still good. There two were very similar Seleucid mods. Both provided food and happiness from barracks in the UA, but one also provided XP while the other provided production. One replaced the spearman with an almost proto-Impi while the other gave an early pikeman upgrade. Both replaced the courthouse as well. I'm leaning toward's Hiram's because it seems a bit more balanced.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Side note: I was thinking that some or all of the civs can have more than 2 unique units/buildings. So in the case of Carthage they can have elephants, quinqueremes, and cothons. And I think all the Greeks should have hoplites.

 

[sman1975]

I'm going through the workshop right now picking out mods

I've seen those mods before, and was going to recommend reusing at least the artwork (again, this is the most painful, time-consuming part for me if I have to do it on my own) on many of these. We can also use different civ artwork for different civs in the game. There's no actual restriction, so we should look for the "best looking," or at least the most accurate we can find. If it's a Roman civ converted to a Macedonian one, I'm fine with that.

Starting off, I think we'll need at least 12 different civs' artwork for our own 12 starter civs. If we add or drop some playable civs, that number will fluctuate, but that is where we are at the starting point.

some or all of the civs can have more than 2 unique units/buildings.

Civs can have as many UU's and UB's are you'd like. UI's (unique improvements), as well. Heck, I just finished a unit pack that provided 53 UU's for the Aztec civs.

However, there can only be one UA per civ, but we can make that as involved as you'd like. Can be pretty creative or not, and there aren't really any limits as to how many features go into the UA.

I plan on offering a wide variety of UU's for each player civ. These "unit packs" will consist of the main types of units in that historical period. Here is my first draft, top of my head (rough) list: swordsman, heavy swordsman, phalanxes/hoplites, heavy phalanxes, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, auxiliaries (militia/rabble), light bowman, heavy bowman. I'm not set on the naming of those types or even the actual types to include, but I think you get the idea. I believe there will be about 10-15 unit types that will make up a unit pack, and there will probably be 5-10 different unit packs in the mod.

There will be a "standard" unit pack for many of the playable civs (and probably the city states, as well), but there will also be a customized unit pack for the main civs, such as R&C, and maybe a few more civs. The map will look quite varied when you see all the different types of models for the same unit type.

Additionally, certain civs will get some "civ-specific, custom" unit types: these may consist of a type of chariot, or perhaps some sort of elephant unit, etc.. Or any other "true" unique unit that would apply to that specific civ. We'll discuss specifics on these, oh let's call them "True U.U.'s" (or TUU, for the lack of a better term), after most of the unit packs are completed. Mostly to add an historical flavor/immersive quality, or to fill in gaps for that civ, if their overall capabilities aren't as strong as other civs (e.g. a weaker UA, or UBs).

Adding UBs is perhaps the easiest thing to mod, if you have a good idea about what the building should offer. But, in the back of your mind, constantly look out for balance - so that Rome isn't always coming out on top, even if they might should have been historically. Temper the bonuses with some kind of cost, such as a resource requirement, high maintenance costs, etc.

Brings up the larger point of balance. At least to some degree, I'd like to balance what we give to a civ with the right hand - as a bonus - by at least looking for a few ways to take some of that back with the left. I don't want to balance every bonus completely, but would like to at least make a minimal effort to force the player to sometimes have to make at least a little painful choices. This is true for units, buildings, even UA's. Again, it's a goal not a requirement, but I would like to temper the bonuses when/if possible.

Am wrapping up my other projects but unfortunately am having some IRL distractions coming up the next couple of days. I may not get back to you until later in the week. But, if you can manage to review any custom civs for artwork, and maybe even look at some of the custom units that are available in that time-frame, make a note of them, and I'll come back to units as well. There are some mods out there that have some very impressive artwork. I'd like to reuse as many of these things as we can.


There are a few links here for unit types that are quite easy to reuse:

Ancient Era: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/categories/civ5-ancient-era-units.129/

Classical Era: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/categories/civ5-classical-era-units.130/


Misc Units:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/africa.485554/

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/jtitans-warriors-of-the-mediterranean.479012/#post-11945677

https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/civ5-ancient-unit-pack-01-rome.19536/


If you see anything there that simply must be in the mod, let me know.

Thanks.

 

[sman1975]

I've looked through the Civfanatics models. Have put all the models that might even be close to relevant into the attached archive. Lots of great choices, even before we looked at Steam!

 

[jeriko one]

Hi all,

Good start to the project!! I have made some preliminary research on the civs and their leaders. I will also ask some questions concerning the addition of some other civs as city-states.

I agree with the list of “Playable Civs”. Also, I think that Pergamum should be playable because of its leader’s ambitions. It also had a role in the Greek front of the Punic War. I also agree with the city-states, but I also have some questions…


1 - Will Thrace, Gaul, and Celtiberia be considered confederation tribes, or will a single (if possible) dominant tribe will be its leader? One consequence of the confederation path would be the reminding of the fact that the Roman Republic was also a confederation.


2 - Should the Getae be in the game? Those parts of the map will be very desolate.


3 - This will be a deja-vu for you Depending on the frontier between the Seleucids and the Ptolemaic Egypt, a city-state might be needed in Southern Anatolia. It could be Attaleia controlled by the Pamphylians. However, we need to establish the borders first.


4 - Depending on the frontiers of Gaul, Massilia, and Celtiberia, the Pyrenees might become desolate. We could think about tribes.


5 - Should Epirus be renamed the “Epirote League”?


The leaders might increase in time according to the sources I will get my hands on. In addition to this, the Thrace question will affect the choice of leader. The leaders I could find:

Rome: These two were replaced by a dictator in the aftermath of the Battle of Lake Trasimene. Gaius Flaminius (co-consul)- Geminus Gnaeus Servilius (co-consul)

Hieronymous (Syracuse - Leader - Warning for the artwork: He was 15 yo at the start of the War)

Philip V of Macedonia (Leader)

Ptolemy IV Philopator (Ptolemies - Leader)

Antiochus III the Great (Seleucids - Leader)

Morzeos (Paphlagonia - Leader)

Ariarathes IV (Cappadoccia - Leader)

Aratus (Achaean League - Leader)

Attalus (Pergamum - Leader)

Scopas of Trichonium (Aetolian League - Leader)

Prusias (Bithynia - Leader)

Demetrius (Illyrians - Leader)

Mithridates III (Pontus- Leader)


I will post about the UU's and the must-have units later...

 

[sman1975]

Hey, @jeriko one - welcome. Am hoping you can help us keep things right, historically, especially on the eastern half of the map - since you're the expert in this area.

Will Thrace, Gaul, and Celtiberia be considered confederation tribes

I expect Thrace to be playable, but Gaul and Celtiberia will most likely be city states, although with perhaps more than 1 city in that empire. You could make an argument for 2-3 seperate city states for each of those entities, but I think that's probably too accurate for the purposes of the scenario. In game terms, I'm not sure I'd want to drill down on the confederation issue, especially with Rome. Civ5 is rather a crude at running scenarios, as most of what you need (short-term focus, existential struggle) simply isn't what the game engine was designed to provide. It takes a lot of twisting to get it to even look like it can run a decent scenario. Trying to recreate the complexities of intra-Roman political realities is probably beyond our reach here - especially since that would mean a lot of work occurring in 50-100 tiles of the map that only directly involve 1 civ.

Should the Getae be in the game? Those parts of the map will be very desolate.

@Mantis Toboggan M.D. and I had a discussion earlier about the "usefulness" of Barbarians in the scenario or not. I thought that on the edges of the maps, a few Barb camps might prove interesting, although he thought the Barbs just not historically applicable. If I'm adding the Numidians/Lybians as city states to the southern map edges to take the place of the Barbs, I suppose treating the northern edge the same way would be appropriate. Can always add Getae to the list.

Begs the question, though: I'm not 100% certain you can give UU's to city states. I tried this once and it didn't work, using the game's "normal" method of assigning UU's. There's a "back door" way of doing it, but basically removing all units from city states, then using the Scenario Management Engine (SME) to spawn units periodically and control the type of unit that appears. It just doesn't seem proper that Numidia would use the same looking units as Getae, especially when we have some really good models of Numidia/Lybia to work with. I guess the bottom line is, we will use city states on the map edges to take the place of barbs, and those city states will have a form of UUs, even if I have to beat the game engine with a hammer to get it done...

a city-state might be needed in Southern Anatolia.

If we add Attaleia, it will be towards the end of the map design effort - if there's enough of a "blank space" on the map. I can definitely see that happening, but it ultimately depends on how many cities I actually place on the map. That decision is a relative one, as once we finalize the actually playables and most of the city states, we'll need to determine some kind of relative populations between all the civs. I'm not saying that we need a formula that says "1 city population for each 100,000 people in the empire" and divide it up like that, but a reasonable heuristic along those lines would definitely be helpful.

I'd also make the argument that the capitals are much larger than the "provincial" cities, to demonstrate their relative concentration of the centers of power in an empire - more so than actual population numbers. So, for example: Rome has a million people living there and Taranto has 500,00 - if I assign a population of 10 to Rome, I wouldn't necessarily assign Taranto as 5. Perhaps 3? And other cities might be smaller in population but more important strategically (Syracuse?) - it would get a larger population on the city on the map, simply to demonstrate that importance.

This ultimately comes down to "balance" between the civs. I plan to approach this problem by saying that Rome represents 100% of its population as the baseline. So, then Carthage might be 90% of that number. Perhaps the Ptolemies are 50%, and so on. We don't necessarily need a census of each civ, but coming up with a fair coefficient number (a percentage of Rome's 100%) for all the playables, is a good first start.

Once the playables are decided, we'd use a similar process for the city states, although I'd expect those numbers would be quite low by comparison. We'd also want to take into account the numbers of likely allies for each side. When the map is finished, the population (as represented in population points in all a civ's cities) "more or less" for both major protagonists would be similar, even if the total headcount of population might not be.

Depending on the frontiers of Gaul, Massilia, and Celtiberia

Those areas will be part of the extended city states of Gaul and Hispania. There will be nearby cities, but they will be quite small. Although they'll be easily conquered if a playable civ wanted to, the SME will add many "revolt events" to these cities so they revert back to original owners if not properly garrisoned.

In fact, revolts and changing alliances will be a common occurrence in the SME's event manager. In some cases, they'll be preventable by player actions, in other cases, not. We'll get to game and player events after the map is done and all of the units are added. It's inherently tied to the game's diplomacy system, so when we're working on setting up the relationships between all the playables and all the city states, we'll start designing the event structure then.

Should Epirus be renamed the “Epirote League”?

My intent on this scenario is to use a plain-vanilla English as much as I can. From what I recall from history, Epirus is a city I remember. Epirote League is more obscure, less engaging. I don't feel terribly strong about this, but I would like when a player opens the map, to recognize what they see. I'd expect anyone playing the mod would have at least a modicum of interest in the history of the time, but I wouldn't expect them to be experts. So, I'd recommend keeping things simple, but not if it breaks something historically.


Who should lead Rome? Carthage?

Rome: These two were replaced by a dictator in the aftermath of the Battle of Lake Trasimene.

This begs the question I've faced in other scenarios where leadership dramatically changed during the course of the historical time-frame of the scenario. Since changing the leader in game is basically impossible (it's not really, but it's damned painful to do so, with lots of externalities involved), then what is the right approach to select a leader: historical (who was in charge on day 1 of the war)? Most impact (who was the key figure during the entire time-frame? Scipio for Rome, Hannibal for Carthage? A combination between the two? Is dominating on the battlefield the same as running the civ bureaucracy back in the capital?

Rome is probably the hardest, but I'm wondering if we can find some kind of "father figure" to serve as the figure head of the civ for the entire scenario. We plan on adding a special kind of GG that is actually a unit with great power, abilities, promotions, etc. These will be the "guys in the field running things" - so Scipio becomes one of these "Magnates" (for the lack of a better term) who appear from time-to-time, bulldozing across the map, but not really running the day-to-day government back at HQ in Rome.

Perhaps Gaius Flaminius and Geminus Gnaeus Servilius would be such Magnates? Other candidates (ala Wiki): Fabius Cunctator, Publius Cornelius Scipio, Hasdrubal Barca, Mago Barca, etc.

I envision 2-4 of the Magnates available to either side (and possible to a few other playables) at any given time. They will be awarded by a player event, but the primary way to eliminate them is to gather a lot of combat power and go after them to kill the unit. There will also be a player event to remove a Magnate, if they've been on the map for say, "X" turns, and/or they've performed poorly on the fields. More to follow on that when we get to "events."

BTW: we could also use about 50 GG/GA names for R&C, and perhaps 25 or so for the other playables (they can come from before/after the 200-218 BC time frame). Can also add GG names for city states if we have any.


*********************************************************************************


I sincerely appreciate the effort on researching leaders of the civs - even the city states. Having names is important, as I'm planning on using a replacement UI for the city state popup that looks like this:



So, having a civ and leader name, maybe a motto, civ icons, etc., will all be used to populate this new popup. Usually, city states don't need this, but we will use these data for this scenario.

Am taking off in a few - business trip for a couple of days, so no modding time, unfortunately. Am hoping to return to work on this later in the week. Good ideas - keep 'em coming!


EDIT: I'm using Post #3 to keep a "current" version of the civs/city states list. I'll keep it updated as we gather more data. I'll eventually add information about UA's, UB's, UU's, etc., there as well.

Post #4 will be the one where we describe the design for the various Unit Packs, both the standard pack, and then any custom-civ variants.

 

[sman1975]

If anyone is following this thread, please note that I've updated several posts to keep them updated to the current state of the mod.

I'd really appreciate any feedback you have on Posts #1, 3, and 5. I'll be updating these posts often, as I get feedback or think of things that need to go in there.

Thanks!

 

[jeriko one]

Thanks for answering the questions, and welcome back!! I mainly agree with the answers, though I have some comments. I will also touch upon them or re-visit them in my next posts.

This begs the question I've faced in other scenarios where leadership dramatically changed during the course of the historical time-frame of the scenario. Since changing the leader in game is basically impossible (it's not really, but it's damned painful to do so, with lots of externalities involved), then what is the right approach to select a leader: historical (who was in charge on day 1 of the war)? Most impact (who was the key figure during the entire time-frame? Scipio for Rome, Hannibal for Carthage? A combination between the two? Is dominating on the battlefield the same as running the civ bureaucracy back in the capital?

That is a very good point. The leaders I have mentioned are the ones at the start of the scenario. However, the Magnates (which I think is a great idea) create maneuvering room. For example, concerning the Achaean League while the leader at the start was Aratus he was quickly eliminated. Yet, Philopoemen changed the fortunes of the League. The room comes in the shape of setting the starting leader and making the Magnates doing the hard work. Another argument for selecting the leaders based on the start of the War is that since we are talking about alternative history, then there would be the option of the co-consuls being re-elected after a hypothetical victory against Hannibal. We can always fine-tune the approach for every Civ (as you will notice below) as well as the names to be used.


I will also think about possible events, city-state mottos, etc.

Some new leader names:


Galatia - Ortagion (there are not many names around, this one is closest to the era. However, it could be anachronistic. With Greek influence the Galatians had “tetrarchs” which complicates things.)

Masaesylii - Syphax

Massylies - Gaia (at the start of the War. Dies in 208 BC) - Masinissa was the more important figure (a la Hannibal).

Mauri - Baga

 

[jeriko one]

Here are my preliminary thoughts on the Units...

The first point I would like to make is that the quinquereme should be the True UU for both the Romans and the Carthage. Practically the quinquereme was used by the Roman in the later stages of the First, and whole of the Second and Third Punic wars. The Roman variant should be stronger because of the “corvus”. The reason is as follows:

“Eventually, however, the Romans recognised their maritime deficiency and with their usual thoroughness set about putting things right. A Carthaginian quinquereme which had run aground during a naval brush was dismantled and used as a model for the construction of a whole Roman fleet.

The recorded facts relate how 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes were ordered to be ready in two months. While the workmen were busy building and fitting out the ships, the recruiting and training of the sailors proceeded apace. Skeleton ship frames were constructed along the shore and the rowers drilled under the command of their officers.” Osprey Essential Histories - The Punic Wars 264 -146 BC.

The units I liked from your post. I am totally ignorant of the possibilities of the artwork, so I am just making suggestions:


Bernie14 Swordsman Pack 1 - “Greece”. This one would be perfect for Macedonia.

Civitars Hebrew Slingers - This could be the Balearic Slingers. Without the beards, they would be even better.

Danrell’s - Roman Archer, Roman Swordsman, and Horseman Rome v2

Carthage - Love it!! Especially the Sacred Band.

Barbarian Invasion - France, Celts, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Thraikon Chosen Peroi (Would be perfect for the Thrace True UU), Antwerp, Lisbon.

JTitan’s Warriors of the Med

Ethiopian Swordsman and Horseman

JTitan Garamante


I have never used those, but they also look great:

For Rabble/Militia: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/levy-2-multi-ethnic-young-and-old.22597/

I think that the Archer, Chariot and Horseman could be used as a model for North Africa: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/civ5-ancient-unit-pack-10-turkey.19712/

Provided that the “Lambda”s are replaced with something else, this looks quite useful. Side note, it can remain in the Aetolian League hoplites as Sparta was a member of the league:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/civ5-ancient-unit-pack-02-greece.19541/

 

[sman1975]

Thanks, @jeriko one, good ideas all. I haven't forgotten about the project, but am still working on hotfixes for several WAW mods. Things that should have taken 2 days have taken a week...

I'll try to get these off my desk this weekend, and return to this mod at that point. Will update this post later with responses to your suggestions.

Thanks!

************************************************************************

EDIT: I finally finished all the WAW family updates. Am performing backups as we speak. Will publish them tomorrow, then probably take the rest of the day off...

Am expecting to return to this mod on Monday to discuss in detail the pros and cons of having a complete set of Light-Normal-Heavy versions of the various unit types (swordsman, spearman, archer, cavalry, etc.). The scenario will be ~228 turns (monthly) to cover 218-200 B.C., so it's a very long time to play with only 1 swordsman unit the entire game.

OTOH, @Mantis Toboggan M.D. originally requested the elimination of research/tech tree, and allow progress tied to a modified Social Policies UI. I'm not 100% sure about this, as it ties evolutionary military progress to Culture, rather than Science. I'm leaning towards a very simple tech tree with about 3 paths (science, culture, military), with perhaps 3-6 techs on each path - scoped to make it possible to complete about half of all the techs at scenario end, using basic science buildings (there won't be many). The "normal" and "heavy" versions of units would become available at the discovery of various techs along the bottom path. The Culture path would add more culture buildings, and the science path would provide more science buildings, and probably a few new promotions as well.

We could add a new UI that looks/acts similar to the Social Policies popup, but will need to add a new "resource" type feature. This progress could be tied to the Public Opinion feature, but as that value can rise/fall every turn, it doesn't contain any reckoning of an accumulation of progress towards the next tech-like/social policy-like feature.

A long way of saying, if we only have 1 type of unit for each class for 220 turns, it might be a little dull. However, if we do add Early-Middle-Late versions of these units (or lite-normal-heavy), then we need to decide on a system to track progress towards the trigger that provides it (new tech/policy, gift of the gods, etc.).

In a way, this is a good thing - means we're getting more detailed on the final design. More later...

 

[sman1975]

For your consideration:

There's quite little pride of authorship, so please feel free to offer any suggestions you may have.

The techs are organized along basic principles - with a font icon superimposed on the tree to show what is the focus of that particular line. The "Classical Advancement" tech is the repeatable "future tech" of the scenario.

I envision these techs requiring only a few turns each. For example, in a game of ~228 turns (19 years, monthly turns), I'd balance the techs out to where you could research 10-15 in total, so somewhere between 15-30 turns (1+ to 2.5 years per tech) to complete research. To get the balancing correct will take a few test games, but the main approach to balancing is to limit Science capabilities in any buildings that are added.

Libraries will be quite important, but will be pretty expensive compared to now. Additionally, population growth will be slowed considerably, so it will be hard to grow a city much in 20 years (about a generation). For cities that are heavily fought over (and change hands more than a few times), they'll be devoid of population, quite limiting how much use a Library might be.

To me, this makes more sense, using tech to drive, well, technological improvements than culture. It's a design criterion quite familiar to players, meaning they can play the scenario with less time studying.

Appreciate any feedback you have. Thanks!

EDIT: most of the tech entries in the little boxes on the tech tree are notional, there for looks only. When/if we decide to use a modified TT, then we can better determine what the exact techs are, and what benefits go along with those techs.

Remember that researching techs can also grant promotions to units trained AFTER that tech is discovered (but, it may also go to existing units, I can't quite remember). So, I envision a few promotions scattered throughout the military bottom half of the tree, as well as the research line.

 

[jeriko one]

Hi there! Good to have you back. Also congrats regarding the hotfixes to WAW!! If I can find the time I will surely take a look at it.

So... my post will be kinda long, therefore I hope that you can bear with me. This is my take on the units, in general. Also, my points are mostly based on previous posts. I will refer to them when possible...

There was a question about the “orders of battle”. Let me remind you.

3 - “10. Army sizes and distributions should be honest to where the two empires were at the time of the war. As such Carthage for example will start with an army and General in the Alps.


Response: No problem. Getting the relative "orders of battle" and disposition of forces will be tricky. What is the relative size (say in total combat strengths of all units) of each civ's army? Cavalry? Naval melee? Naval ranged? Can glean some of this from history but much of it will require a judgement call - especially in the disposition (i.e. where each unit is located).”​

This is actually intricately linked to the population problem you have touched upon. According to one of the academic sources I have read Rome was able to raise 700.000 men immediately at the start of the War, but most of them needed training. At the apex of the War, Rome had 20 legions. To be exact:

“A legion consisted of some 4,000 infantry, except in times of special danger when the number was increased to 5,000. These were organised into 10 cohorts, and 300 cavalry who were formed into 10 squadrons”.​

The special danger was Cannae... There the Romans had 80.000 infantry and around 6.000 cavalrymen. At the Battle of Lake Trasimene Rome had 21.000 men, roughly 5 legions. There was also a legion in Sardinia. I don’t know how a legion would be reflected in the game in terms of units. The Roman Navy should be very strong. At the start of the scenario, it should rule the seas. The reason will be clarified in the next paragraph.

Concerning the Carthaginian Army, at the start of the campaign it had 100.000 men, 24.000 of which were cavalry. One thing is crucial here; the Second Punic War did not start when Hannibal was near the Alps. Rather the first step was the crossing of the River Ebro, which was set as the natural border between the Roman and Carthaginian spheres of influence. Breaking the treaty between the two powers, Hannibal simply crossed the river and attacked Saguntum (under the protection of Rome and a must for the map). But why did Hannibal not first landed on Sicily and later moved to Italy? Two reasons: a) The Carthaginian Navy was in decline since the defeats of the First Punic War; b) The Barcid family was heavily invested in Iberia since the treaty ending the First Punic War. It was the best place to start as the Navy was not much of use. (In any case, one of the most important naval actions of the Carthaginians ended in disaster due to a storm near Sardinia).

This brings the question of unit types... I agree with the unit types you have listed. I also agree with the necessity to diversify the units. I just want to add that the light bowman should be changed to javelinman, slinger, or peltast according to the Civ. For example, Carthage: Balearic Slingers; Rome: Velites; Achaean League/Aetolian League and others: Peltasts; whoever has Rhodes: Rhodian Slingers...

My final point for this post… Will there be mercenaries and “ally” troops? This point is also intricately linked to the game mechanic that allows the lowering of the population on unit recruitment. The problem is Carthage... Historically, it levied troops from its allies and was heavily dependent on mercenaries. The Iberians, Gauls, Numidians and even the Libyans should be considered under this heading. A cunning Roman player can always take the War to Africa (from the start, not later like the historical path) and ravage the Carthaginian recruitment opportunities.

BTW, you might ask “what about the Carthaginians themselves?” The answer to this perceptive question would be “they acted as administrators and strategy-makers”. The generals and the politicians were all Carthaginians. As to the troops:

“There were also native Carthaginians in the army, but their number was never very great and they were mainly confined to a few hundred heavy infantry called the Sacred Band. From this force the long-term professional leadership was selected, thus ensuring that the generals who commanded the mercenary army came from amongst their own citizens, though the Numidian cavalry did produce their own commanders.” Osprey Essential Histories - The Punic Wars 264 -146 BC.​

So, if Magnates are to be used then the Carthaginian ones should include raising levies from allies (when they are within their territory) and recruiting mercenaries. This could even be the UA for Carthage. If the populations of Carthaginian towns remain low, this has to be the way out for the sake of balance.

p.s. I like the tech tree! I agree with the libraries, too. I will think about the tree as well as the possible routes to be taken.

 

[sman1975]

Thanks, @jeriko one, I was definitely glad to get those mods off my desk. It takes about 10 minutes of computer time simply to rebuild the mods to their final versions (a version I can upload to Steam) - and my computer isn't exactly a slow one... But, when working on a mod "family," often a small change in one will require a change in many of the other 3. Often, this will require a bit of testing, which finds another issue, then we get to repeat the cycle. I found myself working several hours yesterday working on about 20 "ankle biter" level of issues (a typo here, an incorrect but practically invisible to players model definition there, etc.), most of which didn't directly impact the mod, game or players, but I've found in the past that in Civ5 modding, you'll often see a bug/crash in a mod, then isolate where the mod crashed, check the code and see no errors in the code at all. This almost always means there's a small problem in the code which could be in a completely different part of the mod, but it manifests itself in a crash somewhere else. Makes debugging quite a challenge... So... I try to remove these little inconsistencies wherever I find them, so they don't have a chance to cause crashes elsewhere in the mod later on.

OK, OK, I'll get off my soap box, and let go of the WAW family for a while, and move to something completely different - like a Classical Era version of World at War Scenario... This is humorous to me, as the SME running the Second Punic War (PW2) will be quite similar to the streamlined SME running the "WAW WW2 Scenario On Any Map" mod. It will be simpler in some ways, but more complicated in others - especially since mercenaries (Mercs) played such a large role in ancient warfare in the Med.

Starting off, and this is for everyone, when you want to include a quoted part of a post, please use the forum tools to display the quote correctly. This will make it much easier for me to see what's being quoted, and I don't have to try and sleuth out what's old and new text. Saves a lot of time and is much less confusing.

To use the Quote feature, simply go to the old message and "select" the text you want to insert (by dragging the mouse over the text with the left button pressed down). A small, gray menu appears beneath the text that says "+ Quote | Reply". Select "Quote", then go to the bottom of the forum to a new post. Underneath the blank, blue background where you enter text for your new post, you'll see an "Insert Quotes..." button. Press the button, then a popup will appear, with the text you had previously selected. Press the "Quote These Messages" and the text will appear wherever the text pointer was in the new post was when you pressed the "Insert Quotes..." button. It will look odd, but this is how the system displays quoted test in a post.

I'd really appreciate it if everyone contributing here would do this. Thanks!

 

[sman1975]

OK, now that I'm off my second soap box for the morning...

Getting back to @jeriko one 's message:

Just like I plan on using Rome as the baseline for all civ's populations (a reminder: Rome will be that 100% benchmark. All other civs will be a percentage of Rome. We might say that Carthage is 90% of Rome's population. So, if all of Rome's cities have a total population of 50, then the population of all Carthage's cities will be 45, etc.), we should probably use the Roman army in the same way. If the combat strengths of all melee units they have equals 1,000, then Carthage's would be 900, etc. It's a simple heuristic, but for at least the initial version of the mod, this is how I'll be scoping the strengths of the playable and city states armies. The hard part is getting the coefficients correct! It's one of the data we need to add to the civ info in post #3.

The "legion" both Roman, and other civs, will be the standard swordsman unit of the day. If we have 3 varieties of unit types, civs will start with the "Light/Early" version of the legion. The Medium/Middle version will be stronger, with a promotion or two added, and the Late/Heavy version will be even stronger, and probably with a "preparatory attack" (think velites) where they throw a javelin that does damage before the actual melee attack begins, which also causes damage.

Adding this predatory attack requires different attack animations, which will require a completely new unit model. It can't be done via Promotions. If we don't use a Tech Tree, then we'd need to decide what criteria we'd use to decide when to change the units to a later version. It's easily done via database changes if we use a TT. Done without a TT requires Lua, which basically replaces the unit any time it spawns the obsolete version. There is no stable "unit created" event in the API, although a few have been written over they years, they all have various drawbacks that make me hesitant to use them unless there's no alternative.

Concerning other unit types (spears, cavalry, archers, etc.): these should also see a similar growth in capability as they evolve throughout the scenario. Specific bonuses TBD, and if no TT is used, additional criteria would be required to determine when they are used.

The "generic" unit pack will be the "baseline" for all unit strengths, promotions, etc. Individual civs, if they have a UU to replace the generic equivalent, will have their own models, stats, etc. on an exceptional basis. In many cases, I can see a civ using a single model for all 3 unit types (Lite/Med/Hvy), but they will be 3 distinct units. They would use the same model/icon, but may have a different unit flag, so that a player can tell how capable the unit is on the map near his units. OTOH, using a single flag for all 3 types means they will have to get close enough to engage the enemy unit to determine which version (LMH) it is. Might be interesting...

This point is also intricately linked to the game mechanic that allows the lowering of the population on unit recruitment.

I don't think I'll add the population reduction when units are trained in the old-fashioned way. Since population growth will be severely limited (you can't expect the population to rise much in monthly game turns, when it took several turns in the regular game to grow 1 point of population even with 40 year turns), adding this feature will reduce cities to 1 population after a handful of units have been trained.

The SME will manage Carthage's troop mix in a way that looks somewhat historical. How a human player decides to play Carthage is a different matter. Do we limit the number of units they can legitimately train, or give them carte blanche?


Good points about the relative navies. Will start the scenario based on these observations. I plan on giving Rome 4-8 Triremes and 1-3 Quinqueremes. Carthage about half that. If we use a TT, then the Quinquereme unit would require a tech in the tree to train the unit, meaning civs won't be able to replace their initial Quinqueremes until they get the prereq tech. The starting navies are intentionally small, but I'll probably spawn a few of these units as player events for AI civs, especially if the human player is near the top of the score table or has a very high PO


Mercenaries:

There will definitely be Mercs. I had planned to manage them the same way I did in my "Exotic Units" mod (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1259586334, especially slides #14-19). You basically go into the city view of a given city, then press the "PURCHASE" button in the lower left-hand of the City View UI. The list of available Merc units will appear along side all the other units you can purchase. It will look something like this:



These Mercs have a "contract" - they will exist for a given number of turns. Once the contract expires, a popup will appear that will let human players decide to extend the contract (for a price similar to the purchase price) and keep the existing unit where it currently is, or let the contract expire, and the unit disappears. These units require no maintenance or supply in normal game terms, just the initial cost.

AI civs will be awarded Mercs periodically through the game via a player event.

the Carthaginian ones should include raising levies from allies

I'm expecting some kind of "Levy System" to be in the game as a player event. Every few turns (maybe 6, or twice a year), civs closely allied to either Rome or Carthage, will contribute a levy of soldiers (a few units of various types, possibly even Mercs) to the main protagonists. As with all unit spawn events, AI civs get much more than human civs, and if human civs are near the top of the scoring table, they'll get even less.

I'd imagine contract lengths would be something like 24-36 turns (2-3 years), given how large the map is and how slow the units move. I'll adjust the prices of the contracts to somewhere near 1/12 of the purchase price of analogous units.

 

[sman1975]

@Mantis Toboggan M.D. , @jeriko one , @Natan35:

The discussion about units has been helpful, but I'm at the point where I can start building the map. We need to bring the data together to fill out the blanks in Post #3.

Please take a few minutes and adds as much information as you can to help me get this completed. I have to build a "mini" version of the mod that simply adds the civilizations and city states we want to use. These are needed before I can start working on the map. So, I'd appreciate it if you can help me get as much of the information there as you can. Also, if there are any "must have" cities (like Jeriko mentioned in Post #35, Saguntum), please let me know those as well.

We can worry about strategic resource placement, roads, etc., later. First priority is to get V0.0 of the civs/city states added, then add the cities, population, buildings, etc.

I realize many of the discussions lately have been in-depth, but you have to remember every hour we spend planning things on this forum will save me 3-5 hours of coding time. The higher end of that savings is directly related to having a good mod design done before coding so that I don't have to keep changing things during development as new issues popup, requiring rewriting existing code.

Thanks


EDIT: Some interesting things happening here:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=442814713


**************************************************************************************************************************************


BTW: @Natan35 - my Mrs. is fluent in German with a Masters in Economics from the University of Heidelberg, with a Jewish father. Are you still looking for information about such topics?

 

[Natan35]

Looks like a lot has went down here while I wasn't looking

Mercenaries:

There will definitely be Mercs. I had planned to manage them the same way I did in my "Exotic Units" mod (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1259586334, especially slides #14-19). You basically go into the city view of a given city, then press the "PURCHASE" button in the lower left-hand of the City View UI. The list of available Merc units will appear along side all the other units you can purchase. It will look something like this:

View attachment 575543 View attachment 575546

These Mercs have a "contract" - they will exist for a given number of turns. Once the contract expires, a popup will appear that will let human players decide to extend the contract (for a price similar to the purchase price) and keep the existing unit where it currently is, or let the contract expire, and the unit disappears. These units require no maintenance or supply in normal game terms, just the initial cost.

AI civs will be awarded Mercs periodically through the game via a player event.




I'm expecting some kind of "Levy System" to be in the game as a player event. Every few turns (maybe 6, or twice a year), civs closely allied to either Rome or Carthage, will contribute a levy of soldiers (a few units of various types, possibly even Mercs) to the main protagonists. As with all unit spawn events, AI civs get much more than human civs, and if human civs are near the top of the scoring table, they'll get even less.

I'd imagine contract lengths would be something like 24-36 turns (2-3 years), given how large the map is and how slow the units move. I'll adjust the prices of the contracts to somewhere near 1/12 of the purchase price of analogous units.

Have you considered using the mercenary mod made by JFD and Pouakai? Perhaps it may save some coding time.
Also, to answer your question - yes, I actually am still looking for information I tried to PM you after I saw your message but was unable to do so

 

[sman1975]

Rome's Civ Leader: Here's a "weak" nomination: Publius Licinius Crassus Dives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Licinius_Crassus_Dives_(consul_205_BC)). True, he was a co-counsul with Scipio, but he was also Pontifex Maximus for most of the war, even though he held several other offices in that time-frame. Could he be that spiritual "father figure" we can use as a civ leader?

I really, really want Africanus as a Magnate. Someone rolling around the battlefield, who can actually be killed through determined enemy action. So, I'd really prefer to leave him (and Hannibal) out as Civ Leaders. I mean, Hannibal was screwing around on the Amalfi coast for 13+ years, definitely NOT running Carthage. He'd have made a great Italian!


*******************************************************************************************************

I'm starting to get annoyed by the term, "Magnate" - those super GG's dominating the battlefield. The term wasn't used until the 15th century, and was in all honesty only a placeholder term in the first place. We really should put some effort into finalizing the name - as it will alter a lot of the code, if we change it later - reworking things I'd prefer to only work once.

The Greeks used the term, "Strategos Hypatos," or "Supreme General." (aka "Hypatos") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategos

The Roman "Consul" is obviously a good choice for them, as they spent considerable time in the field and many died on the field while in office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_consul

The Carthaginians also used the terms "Strategos" and "Boeotarch." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage#Formation_and_structure

We can use different names for different Civs, as I expect - like most units - there will be different models for the major civs (R&C, perhaps a couple more). I'll probably also assign historical names to many of these units as well, so that when you hover over the unit on the map, you'll see something like this hovering over the unit:

Publius Cornelius Scipio (Consul)

Hannibal Barca (Boeotarch)

And so on. If you can think of other names for the various playable civs, let me know. I'm thinking that IF city states get these types of units, I'll probably just stick with the generic "Strategos" term, since we're generally speaking about an Hellenistic world in the eastern half of the map. Again, I'm not sure that city states should have these units.

OR.... If they do, then I think there should be a 2-tiered approach: the Stretegos, et al, will be the super GG, promoted to the hilt, etc. We could also have a "Praetor" type version, less-powerful, fewer promotions, perhaps shorter lived, but perhaps a bit more numerous. If we add this unit to city states, it would be the lighter version. If we don't let city states have them, they may not be needed at all.


*******************************************************************************************************


Appreciate any thoughts on these subjects. I'm at the point that I'm adding Civs to the "proto-mod" needed to start work on the map. Wrapping up the leadership is critical at this point. Getting the artwork that looks the closest to what we think those leaders look like would be very, very helpful indeed. I can do this on my own, but the results won't be nearly as good as a collaboration.

Please, also remember, getting all the database changes (which basically sets up the entire mod (civs, leaders, abilities, buildings, units, promotions, etc.) is actually fairly quick and easy. The time-consuming part is setting up the SME. This is how we get the mod to at least "act" like the AI knows what it's doing. Most scenarios are simple maps with a few civs that look historically semi-accurate. The problem is, the game's AI is designed to take a civ from the plow to the stars, with no clear understanding of an existential struggle over a time-frame of just a few years. Significant recoding of many, many things are required to get the AI to even mimic a sentient, thoughtful player.

So, the quicker we get the database changes completed, the sooner I can actually start on the SME. You want Hannibal to cross the Alps? Unless you start with the units pre-loaded at that spot, it will never happen. Without the SME, it's more likely, he'll pillage Gual/Hispania, ignoring Rome, while Rome - with its naval supremacy - simply marches into Carthage, and ends the scenario in 10 turns.

I'm just trying to sensitize everyone's expectations in that getting the leaders, units, and artwork together is NOT the end of the mod, it is basically the beginning of work that is needed. Otherwise, you just have a map, poorly-used, offering quite an ahistorical gaming experience that will please no one.