Alexander's Conquests development thread

[Keroro]

You're right that he deserves attention; but conquest is one thing, empire-building is another.

So what is Empire Building? Bringing different peoples together under a single rule? Well Alexander did that as well as anyone. The Persian and Greek worlds were thrown together in a way that had never and has never since been matched. Take a look at the cultural transformations that took place in the Greco Bactrian Empire after Alex died, then consider what might have happened if the whole Empire had stayed together under a single ruler, rather than being split between the Diadochi. Look at the Greek influence in Egypt under the Ptolomies.

And in case anyone thinks I am just hero worshipping Alex, I am intending to show the dark sides of Alex as well as the positive aspects. There will be the slaughter of innocents and burning of Palaces, for those that like that kind of thing.

 

[pinktilapia]

I would also find it painful to compare the Romans lasting achievements (which were not built on one man skills) with those of Alex. But this does not change anything to do fact that this secenario is really something I am looking forward to - it might help to sweeten the bitterness I experienced with both RTW and CIV recent extensions dealing with the same topic. BTW beautiful units Keroro, where did you find these?

 

[Blue Monkey]

what might have happened if the whole Empire had stayed together

That's the whole difference right there.
edit: meaning that Alexander left no way for his conquests to cohere as an Empire after his passing.

This is definitely a mod whose creation I intend to support.

 

[Keroro]

@ Pinktilapia and Blue Monkey - Thanks so much for your support, I'm glad people are interested in this kind of scenario.

it might help to sweeten the bitterness I experienced with both RTW and CIV recent extensions dealing with the same topic.

I still think that the best Alex game I ever played was the (unfortunately bugged) scenario that shipped with Call to Power II. I too was hoping for great things from the RTW version, but from what I've heard it was not as good as it should have been

BTW beautiful units Keroro, where did you find these?

Well many of them I tore straight out of RFRE. All the others are from CFC libraries. Some are quite old, but still very good. To be honest I wish I had been more careful when downloading the units, I need to get a credits file together and it's proving to be pretty difficult.

 

[Keroro]

Right, time for me to beg. If there is anyone that is experienced in the use of technology timers then I could use some help. As I understand it, the principle is that you can give one flavour of civs a particular tech line to research, and by making them really expensive you can control how quickly they are researched with the maximum research time setting. But, some questions.

1 - If you give a technology a flavour, then does that force civilizations of that flavour to research it?

2 - Is there any way to guarantee that a technology will take the maximum possible number of turns to research?

3 - Would it be possible to have two seperate timer lines operating at the same time? Has anyone tried this?

Also, I seem to have screwed up my popheads, the civcolour is not coming through as it should. Could anyone help with this?

 

[pinktilapia]

These units in RFRE? Well, most are not familiar to me, I doubt they are in the mod . And I thought we had extracted all we could in terms of antique units in CFC!!

To your questions:
1) and 3) I didn't use flavour in RFRE. Don't trust that system. You give a civ a non recherchable tech (era = NONE) and build a tree/timer line from there. No other civ will ever be able to research these tech as they miss the 'root' of the tree. Note that I didn't multiple lines in RFRE, as you can just make units available to specific civ using the editor, and do similar things with city improvements by requesting specific, localized, resources. Careful though not to assign a building or unit to a Era = NONE tech as they will not appear in the building lists.
2) Yes, by giving the tech a max cost (9999 beakers) - even huge empire (i.e. fully grown Rome in RFRE) would have a hard time researching this in less than a dozen turns.

EDIT - Can't open the attached pic, get an error message; file corrupted?

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

With respect to your popheads file, civcolour (as you most likely will have worked out) is green. However, I believe the greens that appear in bulk at one end of the pallette (either front end or back end, depending on whatever paint program you're using) are the only ones to be civ colour. There are other greens in the pallette and I believe that if they're used, they will only show as green, not as civ colour - so in other words, go through the popheads and make sure their green is from the block of green in the pallette.

I hope this makes sense - sounds a little garbled when I read it back!!

 

[Keroro]

Pink - thanks for the help on Timers, I will experiment a little and post results here. I noticed that buildings or units that are made available through a NONE era tech do not show on a build list, but that's easy enough to get round.

Not sure why the file didn't download properly. EDIT - Just tested it myself from my work comp, and it didn't work for me either. I'll try to fix it when I get home tonight.

R8FXT - I'll check on the different greens in the popheads tonight, and see if I can get it working properly myself. Thanks for the help.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Careful though not to assign a building or unit to a Era = NONE tech as they will not appear in the building lists.

I managed to get buildings to show up when I assigned them to an era-none tech (a temple only buildable by Sparta and co.). Although you're right about the units.

 

[Keroro]

I managed to get buildings to show up when I assigned them to an era-none tech (a temple only buildable by Sparta and co.). Although you're right about the units.

Actually, I only tested it with the units, but I assumed that the same would apply to buildings. Have you tried making resources require an era NONE tech?

On another note, I'm looking into the tech trees quite deeply, and recon that I'll have one proper Timer line, one Persian line, one Indian line, one Aristotlean line, one Mediteranean line and one Alexandrian line. The Alexandrians will be able to get techs from the Timer, Aristotle, Mediteranean, and Alexandrian lines. Does that sound like too many? I think about one tech per 26 turns should be OK for the Timers (means I get one per year @ 2 weeks per turn). Some of the other lines, especially the Alexandrians, might be balanced so that heavy spending in science will accelerate the rate of discoveries (as in RFRE).

Any comments on that plan? or :thumbdown

 

[Keroro]

Right, I think that this should work - 364 turns, divided into the years 333 - 292. The early turns will represent less time than the late turns (1 week per turn at the beginning, 16 weeks per turn at the end). I recon that with the timings I'm looking at then Alex should potentially die by around the 200th turn, at the earliest. This should be approximately when he returns back in Persia after the first Indian campaign.

There will be five tech trees:

The Timer techs are researched by Cathay, Axum, Nubia, Numidia, Dacia, Thrace, and western / northern barbarian civs. They'll just be named after years (like in RFRE) and will allow some (limited) units and buildings. All civs will be able to acquire these techs through trade / great library. They will take 26 turns to research (maximum research time). This line will end with the possibility of a single city cultural victory, if the player makes it that far.

The Persian techs can only be researched by Persia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Arabia and Scythia. This line will allow plenty of powerful persian units to be built at appropriate times, intended to keep the early part of the game a challenge for Alex. This line will start from the Persian Heritage era-none tech.

The Indian techs can only be researched by Taxila, Paurava and Maurya. It will act in a similar way to the Persian line, but the early parts of the tree (i.e. the part before Alex shows up) will be fairly empty. The later part will allow all sorts of nasty stuff for Chandragupta Maurya to use against Alex. This line will start from the Indian Heritage era-none tech.

The Mediteranean line will be available to the League of Corinth, Lacedaemonia, Epirus, Creta, Cyrenacia, Eastern / Western Greece, Roma, Tyrhenia, Egypt, Phoenicia, Carthage, Macedonia and Alexandria. It will allow for general development of the story in the med region, with Carthage being encouraged to build up its fleet and Roma being encouraged to build its army, Sparta being encouraged to attack Macedonia etc. This line will start from an era-none tech given to the med civs and Alex.

The Alexandrian line will basically be what I already had, a list of the conquests of Alexander. This line will lead towards the Alexandrian Empire and Burial of Alexander victory possibilities, so the player should research this line rather than the med line. This line will follow from an era-none tech only given to Alex.

Possible problems as I see it 1 - encouraging the med, persian and indian civs to research their own tech lines rather than the timer line. 2 - encouraging the Alexandrian player to research the Alexandrian line. Number 2 should be easily solved by putting some good units along that line and leaving the med line fairly sparse for Alex. The player will have a great library type wonder to keep them up to date with the rest of the mediteranean and the timers anyway.

Wow, long post without a smily. Any possible problems people can see?

 

[Keroro]

With respect to your popheads file, civcolour (as you most likely will have worked out) is green. However, I believe the greens that appear in bulk at one end of the pallette (either front end or back end, depending on whatever paint program you're using) are the only ones to be civ colour. There are other greens in the pallette and I believe that if they're used, they will only show as green, not as civ colour - so in other words, go through the popheads and make sure their green is from the block of green in the pallette.

I hope this makes sense - sounds a little garbled when I read it back!!

You'll make a PCX artist of me yet. With your help my skill with the GIMP is on an upward curve. The problem was with the greens not being at the front end of the palatte. Fixed.

Thanks for taking the time out to help when you're so busy with the AD update.

 

[Keroro]

Quick question - Does anyone have any ideas about leader names for the following civs.

Spartans
Cyrenacians
Cretans / Minoans
Tyrrenians / Etrurians
Carthaginians - Maybe Hamilclar?
Nubians
Numidians

Obviously it would be best if I could get names from the era of Alexander (336 - 323), but this is not essential. I'm open to using the names of Gods instead of actual kings and queens. If anyone can help it would be most appreciated.

 

[Quinzy]

this may help for nubia:
http://touregypt.net/historicalessays/nubiac1.htm

 

[Ozymandias]

Quick question - Does anyone have any ideas about leader names for the following civs.

Spartans
Cyrenacians
Cretans / Minoans
Tyrrenians / Etrurians
Carthaginians - Maybe Hamilclar?
Nubians
Numidians

Obviously it would be best if I could get names from the era of Alexander (336 - 323), but this is not essential. I'm open to using the names of Gods instead of actual kings and queens. If anyone can help it would be most appreciated.

Man, you don't ask for much, do you?

Sparta: Agis III (rebelled against Alex 333 BCE; defeated by Antipater 331)

Cretans / Mycenaeans (NOT Minoans, who were extinct by 1150 BCE!): nobody; chaotic melange of battling city-states and pirates.

Cyrenacians: you mean "Cyrenaicans" - and from 440 to 276 BCE was ruled first by Persia then by good ol' Alex. Last king: Arcesilaus IV ca. 465 - 440 BCE. Next king: Magas (276-250 BCE).

Tyrrenians / Etrurians: well on their way to being absorbed by Rome and Samnium at this point (this was an ongoing sport for Rome for nearly 500 years between 510 and 29 BCE) -- indeed, the Samniums were more important than the Etrurians; they fought three wars against Rome between 343 and 290 BCE. AFAIK their only known leader was called by the rather common name "Pontius". I suppose "Tinia" (their prinipal deity) could also suffice. If you require a more imposing-sounding name, another choice (although from the 5th century BCE) would be "Lars Tolumnius" (actually king of the city-state of Veii).

Carthage - Hannibal, Hasdrubal, Hanno and Hamilcar are all regularly occuring royal names in Carthaginian history. I'd go with the Hamilcar who led the campasign against Syracuse from 311 - 307 BCE (even though his father had the trend-breaking name of "Gisgo"). - Also, speaking of Syracuse, is she included? (Hint: probably should be.) If so, I'd use Agathocles (seized power in 311) as their king.

Rather than "Nubia" it'd be better to call the place "Kush" or even the "Kingdom Of Meroe". I'd go with the former. Kushite kings of the time were Akhraten (350-335 BCE) and Nastasen (335-310 BCE).

"Numidia" didn't even technically exist at this time; two tribes - the Massyli and the Massaesyli occupied the area, and are largely of historical significance because they took different sides in the Second Punic War (218 - 202 BCE).

Did I miss anything?

Best,

Oz

 

[Keroro]

@ Quinzy and Oz - The more I read about Nubia and Axum the more I think that maybe they should just be one civ. Alternatively I might make the two a forced alliance so that Alex has to battle both at the same time. Oz - I tries to stay away from the 'kush' term because of the possibility of confusion with the Hindu Kush. Kingdom of Meroe might be OK though. Qunizy - Thanks for the link.

Man, you don't ask for much, do you?

Sparta: Agis III (rebelled against Alex 333 BCE; defeated by Antipater 331)

I'll use that, cheers.

Cretans / Mycenaeans (NOT Minoans, who were extinct by 1150 BCE!): nobody; chaotic melange of battling city-states and pirates.

I might need to re work what I've done with Crete then. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Sparta exercised quite a bit of power in this area, would it be realistic to give the island to them?

Cyrenacians: you mean "Cyrenaicans" - and from 440 to 276 BCE was ruled first by Persia then by good ol' Alex. Last king: Arcesilaus IV ca. 465 - 440 BCE. Next king: Magas (276-250 BCE).

I always spell that word wrong - don't worry, it's correct in the civpedia and .biq. Do you know of a good source where I can get names of Persian governors for the various satrapies BTW? Or was it ruled as part of the Egyptian area?

Tyrrenians / Etrurians: well on their way to being absorbed by Rome and Samnium at this point (this was an ongoing sport for Rome for nearly 500 years between 510 and 29 BCE) -- indeed, the Samniums were more important than the Etrurians; they fought three wars against Rome between 343 and 290 BCE. AFAIK their only known leader was called by the rather common name "Pontius". I suppose "Tinia" (their prinipal deity) could also suffice. If you require a more imposing-sounding name, another choice (although from the 5th century BCE) would be "Lars Tolumnius" (actually king of the city-state of Veii).

I had the Samniums as part of Western Greece, and the Etrurians seperate. I think I'll change it though so that Roma has a more competant rival on it's northern border.

Carthage - Hannibal, Hasdrubal, Hanno and Hamilcar are all regularly occuring royal names in Carthaginian history. I'd go with the Hamilcar who led the campasign against Syracuse from 311 - 307 BCE (even though his father had the trend-breaking name of "Gisgo"). - Also, speaking of Syracuse, is she included? (Hint: probably should be.) If so, I'd use Agathocles (seized power in 311) as their king.

I'll go with Hamilclar for the Carthaginians. Syracuse is in as one of the major cities (along with Tarentum) of Western Greece, though I know there's a good case for including it as a seperate city state.

"Numidia" didn't even technically exist at this time; two tribes - the Massyli and the Massaesyli occupied the area, and are largely of historical significance because they took different sides in the Second Punic War (218 - 202 BCE).

I will look a little more thoroughly at the area's history, and see if I can find a deity name for these tribes. I just want the Numidian area to be a good source of mercenary horsemen for whoever controls it.

Did I miss anything?

You rarely miss anything Oz. Thanks so much, you're a saint.

 

[Ozymandias]

My dear fellow, you are much too kind!

A few more answers & whatnot:

1. Aside from both being occupied by Dorian Greeks, and thereby having some cultural similarities, I can't find any evidence of any particular relationship - even of significant trade - between Sparta and Crete. Crete may actually be best represented by barbarians with a galley or two as a nod to the pirates. (BTW, I'd take a similar approach with the Scythians - they were barbarians, whom not even the Great Alex could subdue.)

1a. Insofar as trading centers in southern Greece go, Corinth and Athens would have been the heavy hitters of their time, along with Syracuse, which leads us to point # -

2. I'm mildly concerned by your comments on Syracuse and Tarentum:
2a. Sicily (with of course, its major port city of Syracuse on its eastern shore) should be divided between Syracuse and Carthage.
2b. Tarentum was most closely allied with Sparta, and literally didn't field an army for much of its history, relying instead on the occasional appeal to others, backed by their significant treasury (read: they purchased both alliances and mercenaries.) Epirus was also a critical ally.
2c. The southern Greeks are arguably best represented as separate from the Greek cities in Italy and Sicily, as they were forced to merge into a "Hellenic League" after a combined Athenian and Theban army was defeated by Philip II at Chaeronea in 338; Sparta managed to avoid unwilling participation until 331.

3. I don't know the answer to your question about Egypt - what I do know is that, after hearing about the fate of Tyre then Gaza, the Egyptian satrapy simply rolled over to Alex. The Egyptians despised their Persian overlords and named Alex Pharaoh.

3a. As for the rest of the Persian satrapies and their rulers - good luck. That "satrap" can refer to either a province or its governor makes research difficult; also, the governance of any particular satrapy seems to have been a rather fluid affair. (Try Googling "Persian Satrapies" and make sure you have a pot of coffee and a bottle of aspirin handy.) To borrow from NYC's Metropolitan Museum Of Art, "Much of our evidence for Persian history is dependent on contemporary Greek sources and later classical writers, whose main focus is the relations between Persia and the Greek states, as well as tales of Persian court intrigues, moral decadence, and unrestrained luxury." - Nonetheless, you can at least get a (somewhat?) accurate list of the satrapies here. Don't forget to click on the map!

... And on another note: unlike Greek Hoplites (which were simultaneously offensive and defensive forces) Macedonian Phalanxes were actually defensive formations. Part of Alex's genius was in combined arm tactics: the famed Companion Cavalry on the right flank as an attacking force could carry home a charge despite the lack of the not-yet-invented-stirrup. The left wing cavalry (the Thessalians) were almost as good as the Companions yet their role was primarily defensive as well. How to proprerly simulate this in Civ (unless you have each of many units represent a combined arms force) of course remains a bit of a mystery.

I do have significant source material on the composition of at least a few of the armies involved.

Are we having fun yet?

All The Best,

Oz

 

[Ozymandias]

I doubt you'll find much of substance pre-dating the 2nd Punic War, but here at least are short lists of the later kings of eastern & western Numidia, should you still need leader names.

-Oz

EDIT/PS - If you do use this area of "pre-Numidia" as a Civ - as opposed to a special-units resource area - here are a few Numidian city names I managed to dig up from a century or two later: Lambaesis; Cirta; Thamugadi; Vescera; Gemellae; and Sarai (aka "Zarai").

-O.

 

[Keroro]

1. Aside from both being occupied by Dorian Greeks, and thereby having some cultural similarities, I can't find any evidence of any particular relationship - even of significant trade - between Sparta and Crete. Crete may actually be best represented by barbarians with a galley or two as a nod to the pirates. (BTW, I'd take a similar approach with the Scythians - they were barbarians, whom not even the Great Alex could subdue.)

I might make Crete an unconquerable nest of pirates, that should force Alex to keep a good naval force in the mediteranean while he's campaigning. And don't worry about the Scythians - they are definately not going to be easily subdued by Alex. They have some immobile units guarding the northern frontier that have a devastating bombard attack (20-4-5).

1a. Insofar as trading centers in southern Greece go, Corinth and Athens would have been the heavy hitters of their time, along with Syracuse, which leads us to point # -

2. I'm mildly concerned by your comments on Syracuse and Tarentum:
2a. Sicily (with of course, its major port city of Syracuse on its eastern shore) should be divided between Syracuse and Carthage.
2b. Tarentum was most closely allied with Sparta, and literally didn't field an army for much of its history, relying instead on the occasional appeal to others, backed by their significant treasury (read: they purchased both alliances and mercenaries.) Epirus was also a critical ally.
2c. The southern Greeks are arguably best represented as separate from the Greek cities in Italy and Sicily, as they were forced to merge into a "Hellenic League" after a combined Athenian and Theban army was defeated by Philip II at Chaeronea in 338; Sparta managed to avoid unwilling participation until 331.

I have Sicily divided between Syracuse (Western Greek) and Lilybaeum (Carthage). The League of Corinth (Hellenic League) is featured too, and as you said the main cities are Athens and Corinth. Tarentum is a difficult one to represent in civ 3 - I am allying the Western Greeks with Epirus, but I can't let Tarentum fall to the Romans too easily (I want to keep the Romans from getting too powerful too early). I think I'll give the Tarentines some good Mercenaries to build. I guess that I could even give Tarentum to Epirus at the beginning of the game to represent Alexander of Epirus' campaign on their behalf.

3. I don't know the answer to your question about Egypt - what I do know is that, after hearing about the fate of Tyre then Gaza, the Egyptian satrapy simply rolled over to Alex. The Egyptians despised their Persian overlords and named Alex Pharaoh.

I'm making the Egyptian cities easy to take by bribery, and also giving then a wonder (obsolete once Alex takes it) that will cripple their economy. They should be very easy to take once Alex gets there.

3a. As for the rest of the Persian satrapies and their rulers - good luck. That "satrap" can refer to either a province or its governor makes research difficult; also, the governance of any particular satrapy seems to have been a rather fluid affair. (Try Googling "Persian Satrapies" and make sure you have a pot of coffee and a bottle of aspirin handy.) To borrow from NYC's Metropolitan Museum Of Art, "Much of our evidence for Persian history is dependent on contemporary Greek sources and later classical writers, whose main focus is the relations between Persia and the Greek states, as well as tales of Persian court intrigues, moral decadence, and unrestrained luxury." - Nonetheless, you can at least get a (somewhat?) accurate list of the satrapies here. Don't forget to click on the map!

Everything historical is affected by who was victorious I guess. I tried that google search a while ago - spent ages searching but didn't turn up anything really useful. Thanks for the satrapy list though, I'll refer to it often I should think.

... And on another note: unlike Greek Hoplites (which were simultaneously offensive and defensive forces) Macedonian Phalanxes were actually defensive formations. Part of Alex's genius was in combined arm tactics: the famed Companion Cavalry on the right flank as an attacking force could carry home a charge despite the lack of the not-yet-invented-stirrup. The left wing cavalry (the Thessalians) were almost as good as the Companions yet their role was primarily defensive as well. How to proprerly simulate this in Civ (unless you have each of many units represent a combined arms force) of course remains a bit of a mystery.

The Phalanx is being represented by mini armies. I think that they had significant offensive power as well as defensive power - but their attack was a slow march forward rather than a great charge. As far as the difficulty of representing combined forces goes - well that's the challenge for me isn't it. It is my intention to get the player to use a range of different units, how I get it to work will be the difficult part. Hopefully the Phalanx will be able to excel in sieges and defence, while the medium infantry and cavalry will be better in the open.

Are we having fun yet?

I think you enjoy this more than you let on.

On the Numidian question - The earliest king I could find is Zelalsen, and the only deity that I can find reference to is Ayyur (a moon God). Not sure what I'll do with them at the moment...

Thanks Oz, you're never less than informative. Going higher up my credits list every post.

 

[Virote_Considon]

For Companion and Thessalian cavalry, how about having the Companion's A/D/M as High/Low/Med and the Thessalian's A/D/M as Med/Med/Med?

Edit: Both should also have the "Offence" flag.