[BTS] Hammurabi Scenario

[Locutus]

Although in general I find the suggestions made quite useful, I take offense at the qualification used here. Personally I think of "all those lame Earth" scenarios as an improvement on the Advanced Start option which, from a historical accuracy point of view at least, deserves the qualification more.

It's great that you enjoy making and playing those scenarios, you're perfectly entitled to feel that way -- just as I am perfectly entitled to think they're lame. I get your point, I enjoy the odd Earth scenario myself and occasionally there's another pretty decent one released, but do we really need 200 of them? You'd have a hard time arguing that they're NOT the most uninspired, unoriginal scenarios you can make (unless you add some interesting twists but I've not seen anyone do that yet). That doesn't mean you shouldn't make or play them or that they can't be fun, but can you think of an idea for a Civ4 scenario that's less derivative?

This scenario OTOH not only has a historic setting and map that's not just Earth [insert date here], it has a theme and concept behind it, even if in a fairly basic fashion. It's not just a 'historically accurate' version of Advanced Start, which is not at all what (IMO) 'proper' scenario design is really about, it's something with a direction and a philosophy behind it. If Earth scenarios are the R&B drivel that fills the top music charts, or the reality TV shows of this world, then this scenario is a cool indy band or some original TV show like Battlestar Galactica or Life on Mars. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the best of R&B or reality TV, but I get a whole lot more excited about BSG.

I'm just applauding someone who's moving away from the pack and trying something original, don't get your knickers in a twist...

(And to be fair, this isn't the only original concept, Ambreville's Battle of Britain is awesome as well and I've seen some others I'd like to give more time, but they are rare gems so far. I've been playing Civ since '92 myself and have been an aficionado of good scenarios since their first arrival in Civ2, so with that background I'm just saying that I'm hoping that we'll see more along the lines of Civ2's golden age scenarios for Civ4 (and between this and Ambreville's work, signs are starting to point in the right direction).)

I don't think this thread is the place to discuss the how and why of Civ4's shipped scenarios, so I'll not go into that (you might be surprised to find I mostly agree with you, and I'm not particularly proud of the Civ4 scenarios I've worked on -- with Dale mind you, him and me have been working on mods and scenarios for various games for almost a decade )

 

[Locutus]

Gurra,
I'll give the new version a try if you upload it somewhere. I agree with JEELEN that the sum of your changes might be a little overkill, but of course I'd have to try it to say for sure. I agree with JEELEN that having 2 or 3 civs would make a bit more sense than having only one, if only for flavour as, like JEELEN points out, the area wasn't really unified in Hammurabi's time. The main thing here is to reduce the disappearing-armies problem, you don't necessarily need just a single Civ for that. All the bonuses you've given to the Mesopotamian civ combined seem like overkill as well, just ensuring the Meso cities are defended is enough, you don't have to make them completely impregnable -- the scenario still has to be winnable. Normal strength Archers should work well enough, as long as there are a bunch in most/all cities.

As far as historic accuracy goes, we have little knowledge of Hammurabi's army, most likely it was based on the Assyrian armies of his time, which relied heavily on cavalry and archers, so your first version wasn't too far off. It's also quite possible he relied on the Sumerian phalanx (as well), we just don't really know -- that's the fun of scenario making, you can fill in those blanks yourself JEELEN is wrong when he says that Chariot warfare entered the scene around 1200 BC: that's when it reached its apex. Chariots were introduced in the ME by the arrival of the Hittites in Hammurabi's time (18th c) and spread quickly throughout the area. It might be a bit of a stretch to assume that Chariots were already the staple of Hammurabi's army, but it fits the theme of the scenario quite well so that's a bit of artistic license you can get away with IMO. I'd definitely not get rid of Chariots altogether.

I agree with not starting with CoL because it was basically invented by Hammurabi, that was exactly what I was thinking when proposing that.

As for the civs, I think my original proposal is accurate enough: the Kingdom of Larsa was a major player in the lower delta of Mesopotamia controlling most of the cities that you included in your scenario, and Mari and Eshnunna were also each powerful states controlling multiple cities of their own (but most of those cities aren't on your map AFAIK, but I'd have to research that myself). From gameplay point of view 2 civs with only 2 cities might still make conquering those too easy, but with Always War, no Swordsmen early on and boosted city defenses you gotta cut players some slack anyway You could always merge Eshnunna and Mari for balance reasons and split the lower delta, if you have to choose between balance and accuracy, balance is more important

In reality the biggest opponents of Hammurabi were Eshnunna (which had far more territory and cities than you can give it on this map), Assyria and especially Elam (= Susa and environment). Those latter two aren't on this map at all, you might be able to cram in Susa or Ashur if you really wanted, but you'd still not be able to give them many other cities like they should have and really do them justice. You'd have to redesign the whole scenario and that would completely change things anyway. But I really like the concept of this as it is: a small map with a distinct direction of gameplay. It basically represents one campaign from Hammurabi's life, rather than all his conquests. Not the most historically accurate, but it's a fun game and that trumps any accuracy concerns. The historic setting should mostly provide flavour, not dictate your gameplay.

I think 172 turns is a great number of any modest scenario like this one (as opposed to those humoungus Earth or WW2 scenarios I like b*tching about so much ), I wouldn't change it unless you find that gameplay forces you too (i.e. the scenario is too easy/hard to complete in that time).

I agree with JEELEN that adding in some barbs would add some flavour and force players to keep defending their hinterland even once they start to get their SoD rolling.

 

[Agent327]

As far as historic accuracy goes, we have little knowledge of Hammurabi's army, most likely it was based on the Assyrian armies of his time, which relied heavily on cavalry and archers, so your first version wasn't too far off. It's also quite possible he relied on the Sumerian phalanx (as well), we just don't really know -- that's the fun of scenario making, you can fill in those blanks yourself JEELEN is wrong when he says that Chariot warfare entered the scene around 1200 BC: that's when it reached its apex. Chariots were introduced in the ME by the arrival of the Hittites in Hammurabi's time (18th c) and spread quickly throughout the area. It might be a bit of a stretch to assume that Chariots were already the staple of Hammurabi's army, but it fits the theme of the scenario quite well so that's a bit of artistic license you can get away with IMO. I'd definitely not get rid of Chariots altogether.

Yes, 1200 BC is more like the heyday of the Chariot aristocracies, but chariot warfare was actually introduced by the Mitanni and Kassites around 1800 BC. The Mitanni fought Egypt, but were toppled by the Hittites around 1300 BC, well after Hammurabi's rule. (Kassite raids well predate Hittite king Murshilis's sacking of Babylon of around 1595 BC.) And indeed did chariot warfare spread quickly throughout the area, by conquest of the existing empires; in Babylon for instance there was a Kassite dynasty.

True, the exact nature of Hammurabi's army is not known, but conquests and raids by chariot-dominated forces (see above) and horse-back riding forces (Cimmerians, Scythians, Medians, Persians around 675-612 BC - again much later) at least suggest that war chariots and cavalry cannot have been a dominant element. Rather, his successive campaigns suggest some sort of well trained infantry-based standing army.

[EDIT:]Wiki-pedia gives this graphic representation of the spread of chariot use:

 

[Gurra09]

After all new included things I think that it should be better to do a new map to include the civs that JEELEN talks about. What I used for the original scenario was a map on wikipedia. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hammurabi%27s_Babylonia_1.svg

About the units it should be like this in every city:
3 Chariots
4 Spearmen
2 Axemen/Vulture
5 Bowmen/Archers
1 Worker

Also, I should have some Sumerian Phalanx and/or Axemen/Vultures in the countryside.

About the civs from JEELEN I should do like this:

Hurrites should be included as a normal AI playable civ.
Subartu should be included.
Assyria should be included.
Eshnunna is already in the game. The leader should just change name.
Akkad should be included.
Sumer should be included.
Elam should be included.
Malgium should be an Akkadian city.
Mari and Rapiqum should be Subartu cities.

I think that every civ should be in their own team.


Gurra09

 

[Gurra09]

The new version of Hammurabi scenario is uploaded now. Same download link as the version before.


Gurra09

 

[Agent327]

Glad to see you have made up your mind. Will check it out.

 

[Agent327]

I think it looks much better now. (I didn't check out the map before; looks like you made it from scratch.)

If Babylon now tries to run around with a Stack of Doom, their cities will be quite vulnerable to any attack. (Which, BTW, shows the extent of Hammurabi's accomplishments!)

I've got one minor geographical comment: Subartu should actually be situated more up north (to the west of Assyria) and should be called Nisibis. (Nisibis is were Harran should be.) Subartu, like Sumer, wasn't a city, but a region.

Anyway, IMO it's pretty good for a first - alright, second - try. (I've rated it 4 stars.)

 

[Gurra09]

OK, I should fix that. But what should I do with the Nisibis civ then, rename it to Harran?


Gurra09

 

[Agent327]

O, sorry: (if that's Northern Syria - I don't have the map up right now) that could be Karkemish (to the east of Harran) + Yamshad (Aleppo/modern Halab, slightly to the southwest of Harran) = Empire of Yarimlin of Yamshad.

Also (if you're correcting anyway) Mari - as an independent empire - could include Tuttul/Dulduli (spelling differs), to the southwest on the Euphrates, + Tarqa, slightly to the northeast on the Euphrates.

Finally, maybe desert barbarians (Beduins) should be mounted on horseback (Camels might be too strong for this era) and were also present in the northern desert area between Euphrates and Tigris.

(Hope I'm done commenting now!)

 

[Gurra09]

I've done some historical research and should now do a new version.

- Mari will be an Assyrian city.

- Subartu and Eshnunna should be merged so there are as few´civs as possible with only one city, leader will be King Ibelpiel of Eshnunna because I have his name but not the Subartu leader's name.

- Hurrites will be deleted.

- Rapiqum should be given to either Akkad or Babylon, which civ should get it?

- King of Akkad and King of Susa should get names, does anybody know which leaders that ruled over Akkad and Susa under this scenario's time period (before Hammurabi)?

- Subartu will be moved on the map and be renamed to Nisibis.

- Other kinds of barbarians than Axemen will be added.


Gurra09

 

[Agent327]

I've done some historical research and should now do a new version.

- Mari will be an Assyrian city.

- Subartu and Eshnunna should be merged so there are as few´civs as possible with only one city, leader will be King Ibelpiel of Eshnunna because I have his name but not the Subartu leader's name.

- Hurrites will be deleted.

- Rapiqum should be given to either Akkad or Babylon, which civ should get it?

- King of Akkad and King of Susa should get names, does anybody know which leaders that ruled over Akkad and Susa under this scenario's time period (before Hammurabi)?

- Subartu will be moved on the map and be renamed to Nisibis.

- Other kinds of barbarians than Axemen will be added.

You could merge Mari with Subartu and Eshnunna with Susa.

I'm not sure why you want to remove the Hurrites - they entered the area in the 2nd milennium BC.

First powerful king of Akkad was Sargon I - so you could give him number II or III; but actually Akkad was in decline after Naram-Sin (2270-2239) and fell under the rule of the 3rd dynasty of Ur (see below), so you could well give Rapiku(m) to Babylon.

Other names:

- Mesilim [Kish] pre-Hammurabi
- Mesannipadda, Urnammu, Shulgi, Bursin/Amarsin, Shusin, Ibi-Sin [Ur]
- Urnanshe, Gudea [Lagash]
- Lugalzaggesi [Umma] pre-Hammurabi
- Utu-Hegal [Uruk] pre-Hammurabi
- Rim-Sin [Larsa/Sumer, 1758-1698]
- Shiamshi-Adad I (1749-1717), Ishmedagan (defeated by Rim-Sin) [Ashur]
- Kindattu [Susa]
- Shar-Kali-Sharri [last king of Akkad before collapse].

Also, the Akkadians already employed Axemen (plus Archers and Javelinthrowers), whereas the Sumerians preferred heavy infantry/spearmen. Javelinthrowers and Archers were preferred by desert peoples, as they were lightly armed and thus quite manoeuverable.

Finally, if you really want to get accurate Babylon should start allied with Mari and Larsa and at war with Eshnunna-Susa (Elam) - but that might make things a bit too easy.

 

[Agent327]

Nice idea. (Except perhaps the Warlords angle...)

 

[Agent327]

Yes, sorry - I didn't mean to imply there shouldn't be a Warlords version.