Ancient Mesopotamia

[Hickman888]

After putting out my Persia video, that about wraps up my gameplay with ancient Mesopotamia, and I wanted to take this time to collect my thoughts and any discussion here about the civilizations involved in this region, the "cradle of civilization". Namely, the civilizations of Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites, Persia, and my ideas for how a Sumerian civilization could be worked into the mod.

Sumeria: Spawns in 3000 BC (With an advanced start of 150 )
Leader: Ur-Nammu, founder of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur after Akkadian and Gutian domination. I couldn't find a leaderhead already made, but someone made one for Urukagina, another prominent Sumerian king.
UP: The Power of the First Civilization: The Sumerians start the game with an advanced start
UU: Vulture: Militia, with +50% city attack and defense
UB: Mudbrick Granary: 1/2 cost granary that saves 35% after growth, and gives with Wheat
UHV1: Astute Record-keepers: Be the first to discover Writing
UHV2: Fertile Crescent: Have three cities with an average population size of 7 by 1400 BC
UHV3: Cradle of Civilization: 70% of the tiles in Mesopotamia are either improved or settled with a city by 1200 BC

Assyria: Spawns in 3000 BC (Meant to represent the Akkadians as well)
Leader: Sargon, and Ashurbanipal
UP: The power of resettlement: Sacking a city in the ancient era gives your capital +1 population
UU: same
UB: Kalliu: The barracks should give +1 instead of decreasing maintenance, in order to promote whipping
UHV1: Same
UHV2: Control Mesopotamia by 2100 BC and Mesopotamia, Persia, the Levant and Egypt by 900 BC
UHV3: Same

Babylon: Spawns in 1900 BC (Does not spawn if human controls Sumer. Otherwise, flips all Sumerian cities, including capital.)
UP: Same
UU: Asharittu Bowman: 5 cheaper, and starts with Cover, to give more of an offensive capability to this collateral damage causing unit
UB: Same
UHV1: Be the first to discover Contract
UHV2: Control a holy city by 600 BC
UHV3: In Babylon, control 3 wonders, refined culture, and a population of 12 in 500 BC

Hittites: The Hittites play extremely well, I only have two comments on them. First, the Huluganni is a workhorse of a UU, and definitely the best thing the Hittites have going for them. But I think his cost could be increased slightly, from 30 to 35 to reflect this power. Second, their UHV2, Generate 1200 by 800 BC, is very easy. I think it would be fun if it was bumped up to 1800 , and it also took into account the double hammers that you put into your buildings, i.e. double production speed of Bloomery with iron. This would incentivize the player to build their Bloomery in many cities. At the moment, the player can get away with not building the Bloomery at all.

Persia: Like the Hittites, I think the Persians play very well. You have a frantic race against the clock to build your empire, and then UHV3 is like the epilogue, where things wind down and you enjoy your empire for a few turns. Also like the Hittites, I only have two comments.

First, the 10 wonder goal is very tight, too tight for many games. There's too much randomness in considering if the AI made enough wonders for you to capture: Sometimes Babylon is dead and pillaged from barbarians, or sometimes the Greeks didn't feel like building that many wonders. That would be fine if Persia could build those wonders instead, but on any given turn, the player can only be constructing Zoroastrian or Pagan wonders. Increasing the deadline to 200 or 150 BC would insure the player has the time to build the wonders if necessary. To compensate, I think increasing the population goal to 40% would be very feasible, and insure the player still has some conquering and settling to do. 35% population is fairly easy.

And second, and this isn't that big a deal, but UHV3 gives a lot of time to the player to complete. I completed it on turn 163, with a deadline of 230.



Gameplay/Miscellaneous:

• At game start, southern Mesopotamia should have a couple of lagoon tiles, with an extra wheat resource placed.

Spoiler Southern Mesopotamia :

• This reflects the fact that, not only did the Persian Gulf reach much more north in this period, but the region was more fertile as well. In 2000 BC, the lagoon tiles can turn back into desert, and the wheat resource disappears. This reflects the retreat of the Persian Gulf, and the salinization of southern Mesopotamia.
• As I understand it, ancient Mesopotamia was made up of two distinct peoples: Sumerians and Akkadians. The Sumerians start with an advanced start, to reflect that fact that their civilization was already about a 1000 years old at this point, and give them a running start for their short-term goals. The Assyrians spawn in 3000 BC to represent the Akkadians, as they forged the first empire under Sargon, and to give continuity with the warlike goals of Assyria later on.
• The Babylonians were also Akkadian (northern Mesopotamian), and they spawn in 1900 BC, flipping Sumerian cities. Babylon won't spawn if the player controls Sumer, in order to give the player the opportunity to play out their goals.
• However, if Assyria is human controlled, and they conquered Sumer, they will have to deal with their Akkadian empire falling apart due to the Babylon spawn, and reconquer Mesopotamia later under the Middle Assyrian, or Neo Assyrian empires.
• Tushpa, the Armenian city, should spawn in with 10 , in order to prevent it from being razed if Persia takes it too early, i.e. right after they take Babylon.
• I watched "The Sumerians- Fall of the First Cities" by the Fall of Civilizations Podcast while doing my homework for this post. I enjoyed it greatly, and recommend it to anyone else interested in this subject.

 

[Dracosolon]

Good thread.

 

[AOS9001]

I get the appeal of Sumeria, but having them around for only a few dozen turns, if even that, makes me wonder if it'd be worth it to ever implement them. 3000 BC to 1200 BC would probably be the shortest UHV in the game in terms of turns.

 

[Hickman888]

I get the appeal of Sumeria, but having them around for only a few dozen turns, if even that, makes me wonder if it'd be worth it to ever implement them. 3000 BC to 1200 BC would probably be the shortest UHV in the game in terms of turns.

Well, this was just my first draft in how the Sumerians could work. Of course, their UHVs could be revised to be more difficult but with a longer time frame, similar to the Harappans in 800 BC.

 

[IrishDragon]

The new map is great, you could legit fit some of the region specific RFCs on it. It opens up a lot possibilities for minor civs in the ancient era.
Around the Mediterranean and through the Middle East you could have a whole world that has risen and fallen and disappeared mostly without a trace by 1AD. Just need them conquered by the major powers and/or destroyed & plundered by barbarians.

There's a full Elamite civ that could be added, that would exist from 3000BC until the Persians show up or someone else knocks them out. Even if they're not playable, there are a lot of civs they'd interact with. Similarily with an ancient Israel in terms of ready-made resources. Could also add events like if Persia takes Jerusalem from some other civ or indy, it emerges as a vassal. Troy is probably too mixed up with mythology but is also out there. The Minoans are more periphery to Mesopotamia but I'd love to see them added as a full civ at some point.

 

[TsimTsigal]

Honestly i prefer current Assyrians to proposed ones. Maintenance discount is truly godsent when you expand your empire, as well as no unrest unless you sack (in which case it's merely a turn).

I see the idea of making Assyria another whipping civilization, but we already have a lot of them (Russia, Malay, China...). Current one has "the First Empire" feeling to it, which imho is a lot more appropriate. Merging with Akkadians... no idea.

 

[Lilna]

Honestly i prefer current Assyrians to proposed ones. Maintenance discount is truly godsent when you expand your empire, as well as no unrest unless you sack (in which case it's merely a turn).

I see the idea of making Assyria another whipping civilization, but we already have a lot of them (Russia, Malay, China...). Current one has "the First Empire" feeling to it, which imho is a lot more appropriate. Merging with Akkadians... no idea.

I'm in agreement here. Representing the Assyrian policy of resettlement would be nice, but between the earlier start date and their only economy civic being redistribution, I don't see their capital having trouble growing fast enough to support their conquests. Plus, with how expensive redistribution is now, the reduction in maintenance is very nice, and also does a good job representing how their policy of publicized brutality kept the empire together. Honestly, Assyria is one of the rare cases where I'd be in favor of starting them later, to represent the explosive rise of the Neo Assyrian Empire. Although using them to represent Akkad is interesting too.

As for the other suggestions...

Sumeria is a neat idea, and I love the idea of the advanced start, as well as the flip into Babylon. Helps Mesopotamia feel ancient and inhabited like it should, and frees up Babylon to be a bit more of an 'active' civ by laying the groundwork for them. Also like how you've split Babylon's extremely luck-based tech goal into a reasonable beeline for each civ.

Assyria, whatever is done with it, needs to act a bit more warlike. I think it would benefit from a conqueror event once the sea people stop spawning, so that the Neo Assyrian Empire can actually happen in AI hands. It would make playing other powers in the region more interesting too - no more turtling for Babylon or the Hittites.

The changes to Babylon are excellent. No more reloading at the whim of the Indus Valley AI, and some goals to represent the Neo Babylonian Empire too. Personally, I would have Babylon be the civ to represent Akkad, since Akkad itself was stated to be near Babylon, and have them DoW Sumeria on spawn.

Hittites are exactly as you've stated. A great UU, fun goals, but the production requirement currently just happens on its own without having to put any focus into it. No need to build bloomeries, no need to chop with infantry... Upping the requirement is a nice final piece to the puzzle that their game is.

Persia's also like you said - the conquest feels great, but realizing that the AI didn't build enough wonders doesn't. It's also over too quickly - can you really call it a Persia game if you finish before centuries of pointless warfare with Rome? I still like the culture goal, and think it's nice both flavor and time-period wise to represent the Parthians (the longest reigning Persian dynasty), but they need a little something to represent the Roman-Persian Wars. It's too famous of a matchup not to include.

In general, I think the biggest improvement to the region would be whatever increases the amount of conflict there. In the hands of a player, THREE civilizations (Hittites, Egypt, Assyria) have to invade at the very least the levant before 1000 BC, forcing a conflict in the region and leading to the creation of at least a regional empire. In the hands of the AI however, things stay small. The Hittites or Assyrians grab Khalpe. And it's hit or miss on Egypt taking Jerusalem, or Assyria taking Babylon. Conflict between empires for the most part doesn't exist until Persia without player involvement, and I think that this might have a LOT to do with why the Hittites turtle and outlast the Sea People the way they do. There's just nothing else for them to 'spend' their units on.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

To be honest, I'd have also loved to see the game extended to 4000 BCE like how the core Civilization IV starts. As it's known, the first cities began emerging in Sumeria since roughly 5000 BCE - 4000 BCE, way earlier than in Egypt or Indus Valley. A 4000 BCE could only have Sumeria at the start, it could also give more time for the Sumeria gameplay if theoretically Sumeria gets implemented separately from Babylonia

 

[Just an idea]

If game starts with only Sumerians, wouldn't they instantly win on first turn?

 

[trexeric]

If game starts with only Sumerians, wouldn't they instantly win on first turn?

That's historically accurate. The Sumerians won long ago, we've been just-one-more-turning it ever since.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

If game starts with only Sumerians, wouldn't they instantly win on first turn?

I didn't think about it right away admittedly

 

[Leoreth]

Conquest victory could always come with an additional condition like minimum date or minimum world population, if this was really desired.

 

[AOS9001]

4000 BC Sumeria sounds like a lot of fun. Make it so animals can enter cultural borders until you discover alloys for double the fun!

 

[IrishDragon]

In general, I think the biggest improvement to the region would be whatever increases the amount of conflict there. In the hands of a player, THREE civilizations (Hittites, Egypt, Assyria) have to invade at the very least the levant before 1000 BC, forcing a conflict in the region and leading to the creation of at least a regional empire. In the hands of the AI however, things stay small. The Hittites or Assyrians grab Khalpe. And it's hit or miss on Egypt taking Jerusalem, or Assyria taking Babylon. Conflict between empires for the most part doesn't exist until Persia without player involvement, and I think that this might have a LOT to do with why the Hittites turtle and outlast the Sea People the way they do. There's just nothing else for them to 'spend' their units on.

I'd say 4/5 games I've run sees the Hittites sit in Anatolia with 1 city until barbs or another civ destoys them. I think goes to a deeper issue with the AI more generally being too 'calculating' when it comes to war. They're risk averse and you don't really see any of the hail mary stuff like Japan during WW2 or a general rolling of the iron dice. It'd be nice to see more opportunism, and more willingness for larger powers engage more than 1 weaker opponent at a time.

 

[AOS9001]

They're risk averse and you don't really see any of the hail mary stuff like Japan during WW2 or a general rolling of the iron dice

Funnily enough, I've seen Portugal do a few Hail Mary moves. A few months ago I was fighting France after having just mopped up the Moors (I owned Naples and I guess France wanted it), and a bunch of my units had just died defeating a French stack that went after my capital. Portugal actually attacked and managed to take Cordoba and had Santiago down to one defender before my conquest of Italy army made it home! I vassalized them in the peace deal but I was impressed they'd had the guts to do that. A few bad dice rolls for me and I would have been in serious trouble.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

I'd say 4/5 games I've run sees the Hittites sit in Anatolia with 1 city until barbs or another civ destoys them. I think goes to a deeper issue with the AI more generally being too 'calculating' when it comes to war. They're risk averse and you don't really see any of the hail mary stuff like Japan during WW2 or a general rolling of the iron dice. It'd be nice to see more opportunism, and more willingness for larger powers engage more than 1 weaker opponent at a time.

Funny how we reached the point that AI being too smart is becoming a problem now

 

[Leoreth]

There is potential for opportunism in the AI logic, but there are not many opportunities to exploit if everyone is cautious and doesn't do anything. I haven't looked at the ancient Mesopotamian situation in specific, but it is possible that there is some AI logic specifically geared towards 1-2 cities civs that is interfering with them being aggressive.

 

[Leoreth]

I also remembered some conditions in the code that basically say "do not consider aggression in the beginning turns of the game" which makes sense for a standard Civ game but is not appropriate for civs whose entire existence falls into that time period.

I will get around to a more thorough look at this eventually. I definitely want there to be more conflict in the ancient Middle East.

 

[Hickman888]

I'm in agreement here. Representing the Assyrian policy of resettlement would be nice, but between the earlier start date and their only economy civic being redistribution, I don't see their capital having trouble growing fast enough to support their conquests. Plus, with how expensive redistribution is now, the reduction in maintenance is very nice, and also does a good job representing how their policy of publicized brutality kept the empire together. Honestly, Assyria is one of the rare cases where I'd be in favor of starting them later, to represent the explosive rise of the Neo Assyrian Empire. Although using them to represent Akkad is interesting too.

As for the other suggestions...

Sumeria is a neat idea, and I love the idea of the advanced start, as well as the flip into Babylon. Helps Mesopotamia feel ancient and inhabited like it should, and frees up Babylon to be a bit more of an 'active' civ by laying the groundwork for them. Also like how you've split Babylon's extremely luck-based tech goal into a reasonable beeline for each civ.

Assyria, whatever is done with it, needs to act a bit more warlike. I think it would benefit from a conqueror event once the sea people stop spawning, so that the Neo Assyrian Empire can actually happen in AI hands. It would make playing other powers in the region more interesting too - no more turtling for Babylon or the Hittites.

The changes to Babylon are excellent. No more reloading at the whim of the Indus Valley AI, and some goals to represent the Neo Babylonian Empire too. Personally, I would have Babylon be the civ to represent Akkad, since Akkad itself was stated to be near Babylon, and have them DoW Sumeria on spawn.

Hittites are exactly as you've stated. A great UU, fun goals, but the production requirement currently just happens on its own without having to put any focus into it. No need to build bloomeries, no need to chop with infantry... Upping the requirement is a nice final piece to the puzzle that their game is.

Persia's also like you said - the conquest feels great, but realizing that the AI didn't build enough wonders doesn't. It's also over too quickly - can you really call it a Persia game if you finish before centuries of pointless warfare with Rome? I still like the culture goal, and think it's nice both flavor and time-period wise to represent the Parthians (the longest reigning Persian dynasty), but they need a little something to represent the Roman-Persian Wars. It's too famous of a matchup not to include.

In general, I think the biggest improvement to the region would be whatever increases the amount of conflict there. In the hands of a player, THREE civilizations (Hittites, Egypt, Assyria) have to invade at the very least the levant before 1000 BC, forcing a conflict in the region and leading to the creation of at least a regional empire. In the hands of the AI however, things stay small. The Hittites or Assyrians grab Khalpe. And it's hit or miss on Egypt taking Jerusalem, or Assyria taking Babylon. Conflict between empires for the most part doesn't exist until Persia without player involvement, and I think that this might have a LOT to do with why the Hittites turtle and outlast the Sea People the way they do. There's just nothing else for them to 'spend' their units on.

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm hoping with my suggestions, Assyria actually comes closer to representing the Middle and Neo Assyrian Empires, despite the 3000 BC start. With Babylon spawning in 1900 BC, Phoenicia spawning in 1200 BC, and Hittites hopefully being more likely to attack south towards Khalpe, the Assyrians won't really get a chance to expand that much until 1400-1000 BC.

And I really did consider having Babylon be the "Akkadian" empire, but I thought the tie in with Assyria's already warlike goals, as well as their unique unit, makes them a better candidate thematically, even if the Babylonians are the better candidate geographically.

In my Persia game, I fought off the Romans in Greece, but I won before they could get their attackers in Anatolia, the Levant or Egypt. So I think the Roman-Persian wars are kinda represented, as I'm maintaining my empire as my culture grows to meet UHV3. Perhaps there is room to expand the culture goal a bit, so I'm forced into the full war with Rome as I complete the goal, but at a certain point, if the culture goal is made too high, you risk just hitting "end turn" a lot, and that's no fun.

To be honest, I'd have also loved to see the game extended to 4000 BCE like how the core Civilization IV starts. As it's known, the first cities began emerging in Sumeria since roughly 5000 BCE - 4000 BCE, way earlier than in Egypt or Indus Valley. A 4000 BCE could only have Sumeria at the start, it could also give more time for the Sumeria gameplay if theoretically Sumeria gets implemented separately from Babylonia

At first I was thinking that I disagree, to turn back the clock 1000 years just for one civilization. But then I remembered the conversation around scenarios, and how they are easier to implement now. So yes, maybe having both a 4000 BC scenario for Sumeria to start, as well as a 3000 BC scenario with Sumeria already placed on that map, wouldn't be a bad idea.