DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
I mean it's spelled like this in the scenario, not that it's correct 
RFC Classical World
- Thread starter srpt
- Start date
DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
and yes, it's mostly from wikipedia, but some from a historical atlas that i have in my house
Crossphazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 698
I mean it's spelled like this in the scenario, not that it's correct
In the city name map, it was correct, which is what I thought you were talking about. In the scenarios themselves they are misspelled.
I found a source for it, along with several other of the claims.
edit: a majority of the city name changes are integrated into the city name map I have yet to link.
@sprt: There should probably be a road between Athens and Pella in the 320 BC start (and 80 BC if applicable), on the Aegean side, to help alleviate the isolation of both Pella and Athens. The existence of such a road is quite plausible, given Greece's subjugation to Macedon in the prior decades.
added the Athens-Pella road
fixed Massilia and Pattala
I was thinking a while ago about a Pontus respawn as the Bosporan Kingdom.
I'd like to add a few more indy cities. Gerrha sounds good. what about Lusitania and Illyicum?
Dacia spawns in 80BC. not sure why the xml said 75 but thats only for display
yeah I could make Bharuch coastal. maybe I will give it a bay rather than move it. today it is nearly 50km from the sea. was the shore different then?
about Hecatompylos, did it survive as a major town after the Parthians demise? if it was replaced by another town in the area I would rather the city name reflect that. and what did the Parthians call it?
this shouldn't be happening immediately on conquest. it should however happen when a stability check occurs.
maintenance and civic upkeep moderation recently introduced should help. I know some of the tech trades can be crazy. starting techs need tons of balance.
cut off the Roman indy city allegiance at 100AD
what are your thoughts on it? I'm totally open to ideas. the geographical scope of the mod is a bit of a hindrance here I think, since we are forced to either generalize across the whole area or open a pandora's box of regionally unique unit types. one thing i was going to add was to make heavy spearmen buildable with Military Drill OR Scale Armor (you would still need Military Drill for the Barracks)
since I can't see a problem with the code (Mesopotamia is not on the province list in question) I'm wondering if they were conquerors from a previous DoW who got cold feet and wandered off into the desert?
fixed Massilia and Pattala
I was thinking a while ago about a Pontus respawn as the Bosporan Kingdom.
I'd like to add a few more indy cities. Gerrha sounds good. what about Lusitania and Illyicum?
Dacia spawns in 80BC. not sure why the xml said 75 but thats only for display
yeah I could make Bharuch coastal. maybe I will give it a bay rather than move it. today it is nearly 50km from the sea. was the shore different then?
about Hecatompylos, did it survive as a major town after the Parthians demise? if it was replaced by another town in the area I would rather the city name reflect that. and what did the Parthians call it?
this shouldn't be happening immediately on conquest. it should however happen when a stability check occurs.
maintenance and civic upkeep moderation recently introduced should help. I know some of the tech trades can be crazy. starting techs need tons of balance.
cut off the Roman indy city allegiance at 100AD
what are your thoughts on it? I'm totally open to ideas. the geographical scope of the mod is a bit of a hindrance here I think, since we are forced to either generalize across the whole area or open a pandora's box of regionally unique unit types. one thing i was going to add was to make heavy spearmen buildable with Military Drill OR Scale Armor (you would still need Military Drill for the Barracks)
since I can't see a problem with the code (Mesopotamia is not on the province list in question) I'm wondering if they were conquerors from a previous DoW who got cold feet and wandered off into the desert?
Crossphazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 698
It's entirely possible, and the most probable of answers. They could have been camping out in Seleucid lands, whom I could not see into, or the like. However, this raises the issue that the conquerors never appeared, then. Usually the conquerors do appear though, so I'm guessing this is just one of those oddities that won't get explained. I'll report it as a problem if it starts becoming chronic, which it isn't as of yet.
I have seen the most hilarious outcomes of the cities immediately flipping, forcing the Romans to besiege it again, capturing the city, it immediately flipping back, ad infinitum until the entire Roman army bled itself dry throwing itself at the same city in Mesopotamia. Maybe it got fixed in a recent commit, but the fix has never been mentioned and this wasn't too long ago. I'll keep my eyes out.
Also, the problem with the infantry progression is that it is really cavalry which changed the most over this period (stirrup, horse archery, cataphracts, etc), rather than infantry, whose equipment and fighting style stayed very similar. Really, the legion, a UU, is the most profound change of the era, in the West, which was not imitated in that exact style by Rome's successor states.
Swordsmen and heavy infantry should probably be merged into one (heavy infantry, with swordsman stats, representing the chainmailed soldiers with superior steel weaponry of the later era) to allow cavalry some room to shine, as cavalry does well up until heavy infantry, which can monopolise the late armies, when it should be a split force of infantry and cavalry.
To compensate for our reduced infantry tree, we could make the infantry tree broader by adding a unit to complement the usual lot that are consistent throughout the game (heavy spearman, javelinman, light spearman, archer). I'll try to think of something.
Medium, or even medium mailed spearmen could be such a type. It was halfway between the phalanx and the light spearman, sort of like a legionary, but with less of a specialty in swords.
DC123456789
Deity
A few more Greek names in India:
These will also need Indian reconquest city names.
Code:
"Pattala" : "Xylinepolis",
"Varanasi" : "Mpenares",
"Pataliputra" : "Palibothra"
"Bharuch" : "Barygaza"These will also need Indian reconquest city names.
I guess the broad strokes of what I was going for in infantry are:
a heavy spearman/phalanx type of formation and fighting style was the core of most trained armies in the mediterrean/middle east and was not generally considered beatable as a formation (ie you tried to beat it mostly by having a better phalanx) in neutral terrain.
then the Romans more flexible formations found the weakness and the phalanx was obselete. but this was a tactical innovation that it seems wasn't copied or learned by anyone else.
then the legions weaponry is faced with superior Germanic competition in the 5th cen, which really represents changes in the Roman armies which are a bit difficult to model in the game. the easiest thing is too give the German barbarians a better unit
I think there is room for 1 more infantry unit, but maybe it should be like a late axeman/maceman role, not so powerful (8 str like swordsman?) but with a bigger melee bonus.
all of this is based on Rome really, its rise and fall. in India it was all archers and elephants and in China things were different again.
I was thinking of starting Gojoseon with horsemanship, which the Qin and Han do not start with. I found chariots quite useful and horsemen would be the same but cheaper. can nayone say its not justified to let them be ahead of the Chinese in this area?
a heavy spearman/phalanx type of formation and fighting style was the core of most trained armies in the mediterrean/middle east and was not generally considered beatable as a formation (ie you tried to beat it mostly by having a better phalanx) in neutral terrain.
then the Romans more flexible formations found the weakness and the phalanx was obselete. but this was a tactical innovation that it seems wasn't copied or learned by anyone else.
then the legions weaponry is faced with superior Germanic competition in the 5th cen, which really represents changes in the Roman armies which are a bit difficult to model in the game. the easiest thing is too give the German barbarians a better unit
I think there is room for 1 more infantry unit, but maybe it should be like a late axeman/maceman role, not so powerful (8 str like swordsman?) but with a bigger melee bonus.
all of this is based on Rome really, its rise and fall. in India it was all archers and elephants and in China things were different again.
I was thinking of starting Gojoseon with horsemanship, which the Qin and Han do not start with. I found chariots quite useful and horsemen would be the same but cheaper. can nayone say its not justified to let them be ahead of the Chinese in this area?
Crossphazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 698
City name map fixed with additions, mostly Greek (sometimes Latin) and counter-Greek (Native, Persian...): here
Balkans city name map still a tad problematic ("Noricum", lack of emphasis of certain cities over others on the grid, etc). I'll revise that later.
Oh, and Rome's military didn't deteriorate, but rather it shrunk or was elsewhere occupied. Horse archers posed a large problem to Roman armies (the Huns & Avars), but the Germanic tribes won out due to Western Rome essentially conceding its outer territories as grants (to the Visigoths, for example), and being generally unable to field a large army, while the East had problems, as always, in Persia. The "barbarian" nations "spawning" and "flipping" cities is actually one of the more historical uses of the flipping mechanic for most of the affected regions, including Italy.
Thus, a heavier infantry type than the heavy spearman is somewhat logical, in that everyone else (esp. the Germans) caught up to the Romans' military advances. But having swordsmen promote again, in a very short time span (I think it's only one or two extra techs) to an even more powerful melee unit doesn't make much sense, from both a historical and gameplay perspective.
There is a gap between heavy spearman (320 BC - 450 AD) and swordman (450AD-830AD, if we remove heavy infantry) which could be filled, possibly by a unit which complements the heavy spearmen rather than replacing it (promotes from axeman?).
Balkans city name map still a tad problematic ("Noricum", lack of emphasis of certain cities over others on the grid, etc). I'll revise that later.
Oh, and Rome's military didn't deteriorate, but rather it shrunk or was elsewhere occupied. Horse archers posed a large problem to Roman armies (the Huns & Avars), but the Germanic tribes won out due to Western Rome essentially conceding its outer territories as grants (to the Visigoths, for example), and being generally unable to field a large army, while the East had problems, as always, in Persia. The "barbarian" nations "spawning" and "flipping" cities is actually one of the more historical uses of the flipping mechanic for most of the affected regions, including Italy.
Thus, a heavier infantry type than the heavy spearman is somewhat logical, in that everyone else (esp. the Germans) caught up to the Romans' military advances. But having swordsmen promote again, in a very short time span (I think it's only one or two extra techs) to an even more powerful melee unit doesn't make much sense, from both a historical and gameplay perspective.
There is a gap between heavy spearman (320 BC - 450 AD) and swordman (450AD-830AD, if we remove heavy infantry) which could be filled, possibly by a unit which complements the heavy spearmen rather than replacing it (promotes from axeman?).
but what would that unit be? what type of historical formation would be the base of it?
I think what heavy infantry is really supposed to represent is the factor of chainmail armor.
you could also move axemen forward a bit in the tech tree, make them require military drill and metallurgy. make them str 5, +50% vs melee so they actually counter heavy spearmen. leave the barb versions alone, Celtic and Egyptian UUs require different techs (Gallic Warrior just metallurgy, Galatian just Military Drill).
I think what heavy infantry is really supposed to represent is the factor of chainmail armor.
you could also move axemen forward a bit in the tech tree, make them require military drill and metallurgy. make them str 5, +50% vs melee so they actually counter heavy spearmen. leave the barb versions alone, Celtic and Egyptian UUs require different techs (Gallic Warrior just metallurgy, Galatian just Military Drill).
Baron03
Baron
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 314
Hecatompylos is Greek.
Saddarvazeh is Persian. (Parthians and Sassanids)
Today, the area itself is called Šhahr-e Qumis, but for city name purposes call it Damghan. (Arabs)
DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
And if they were hellenized, Parsa, Shush, Hangmatana.... all these are persian names, so decide: hellenized or not.
DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
.....
DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
Nice! I really like the new city name manager!
DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
Muziris --> Greek name for Vanchi Murthur
Susa was also called Seleucia during the hellenistic period
Add Nikephorion in the city manager (2 S 1 E from Edessa)
Susa was also called Seleucia during the hellenistic period
Add Nikephorion in the city manager (2 S 1 E from Edessa)
DrZomboss
Brrrainz Gourmet
You can also add Ammonion in Egypt, Petra to mark the Nabateans, give Cyrene and Jerusalem to the Ptolemys from the start, make independent Tanais at the start, add Pergamon to the Antigonids.
There are some mistakes in the city name manager and in the scenarios
These are MISTAKES, and NOT correct answers:
Ephesos doesn't changes to the Latin version, same with Chersonesos, on the 320 BC map, Diospolis --> Diospolis Megale, Ecbatana --> Epiphaneia, Mediolanum --> Melpum
There are some mistakes in the city name manager and in the scenarios
These are MISTAKES, and NOT correct answers:
Ephesos doesn't changes to the Latin version, same with Chersonesos, on the 320 BC map, Diospolis --> Diospolis Megale, Ecbatana --> Epiphaneia, Mediolanum --> Melpum
Crossphazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 698
Yes, there are a few errors here and there for cities, but thanks for pointing them out!
Cyrene was not conquered by Alexander the Great, and thus it is up to Ptolemy to conquer it (or not).
Pergamon, like Edessa and Arbela, are cities to be founded by the AI at a later date than start, for balance purposes.
That name was not changed until after 200 BC. The name would only change in the event of a reconquest of it, usually from the Parthians, which would usually only happen due to a human-controlled Greek faction.
For the other counts, you are indeed correct.
City name manager, up to date with all previous additions and corrections, here
320 BC with names fixed (Diospolis Megale and Ekbatana changed to how they are written here) : 320 BC map
I thought swordsmen represented the next step from early legions, which is scale and mail armour, rather than heavy infantry. I suppose we could slightly nerf heavy infantry and forgo the swordsman, unless you meant swordsmen to represent late imperial infantry and the like, which makes some sense. The issue is mainly that swordsmen and heavy infantry are clustered around the same spot in the tech tree, so you don't get to use them for very long, despite the new swordsman look being quite appropriate to the era, and the heavy infantry looking (and sort of playing) like something out of the high middle ages.
Cyrene was not conquered by Alexander the Great, and thus it is up to Ptolemy to conquer it (or not).
Pergamon, like Edessa and Arbela, are cities to be founded by the AI at a later date than start, for balance purposes.
That name was not changed until after 200 BC. The name would only change in the event of a reconquest of it, usually from the Parthians, which would usually only happen due to a human-controlled Greek faction.
For the other counts, you are indeed correct.
City name manager, up to date with all previous additions and corrections, here
320 BC with names fixed (Diospolis Megale and Ekbatana changed to how they are written here) : 320 BC map
I thought swordsmen represented the next step from early legions, which is scale and mail armour, rather than heavy infantry. I suppose we could slightly nerf heavy infantry and forgo the swordsman, unless you meant swordsmen to represent late imperial infantry and the like, which makes some sense. The issue is mainly that swordsmen and heavy infantry are clustered around the same spot in the tech tree, so you don't get to use them for very long, despite the new swordsman look being quite appropriate to the era, and the heavy infantry looking (and sort of playing) like something out of the high middle ages.
city name map updates need to be done in spreadsheet form and then added to the python file. otherwise we have a situation where the "master" source map has no terrain or actual primary city sites (the single tile on the relevant settler map rather than the group of tiles with the same name). can you add your changes to the attached map?
edit: what did you think of my axeman idea? I am liking it more having thought about it.
the Parthian city name thing is probably impossible to resolve. Greek was the language of diplomacy and commerce, at least in the western parts. Did the kings and regular people call a given city different things? didn't the Parthians put Greek on their coins? the Achaemenids, the last Persians to rule there, used Aramaic as a government language. I fully admit I was being inconsistent in changing Parsa but not Hecatompylos, and I guess if we have to be consistent then Parthia should be Greek (with an exception for Seleukeia/Ctesiphon or should that be Tisfun?).
or we could have a python event that converts them to Persian if all the Greek civs die.
edit: what did you think of my axeman idea? I am liking it more having thought about it.
the Parthian city name thing is probably impossible to resolve. Greek was the language of diplomacy and commerce, at least in the western parts. Did the kings and regular people call a given city different things? didn't the Parthians put Greek on their coins? the Achaemenids, the last Persians to rule there, used Aramaic as a government language. I fully admit I was being inconsistent in changing Parsa but not Hecatompylos, and I guess if we have to be consistent then Parthia should be Greek (with an exception for Seleukeia/Ctesiphon or should that be Tisfun?).
or we could have a python event that converts them to Persian if all the Greek civs die.
