Some comments ...

[The Last Conformist]

Some issues notices in my roman game I figured I should post ... :

Syracusae's name line is messed up

The tech pace seems off - I'm in the 200s AD and nobody's got ironworking!

Why do chariots get city garrison promotions?

One of the start-up tips says you shouldn't neglect cottages, because TAM is an "expansive" mod. Presumably, "expensive" is meant.

 

[ambrox62]

Syracusae's name line is messed up

Last unofficial patch resolves roman city name bug in a new game only. Syracusae no longer exists, so you are playing an older savegame.

The tech pace seems off - I'm in the 200s AD and nobody's got ironworking!

In 200 AD you are at 60-65% of whole turn time-scale, although historical ironworking came in BC era

Why do chariots get city garrison promotions?

Chariot archers get city garrison promotions, not chariots (as cavalry units).
This happens because chariot archers and (normal/heavy) horse archers are archers combat-unit, like foot archers.
Promos are cumulative on combat-unit-type

One of the start-up tips says you shouldn't neglect cottages, because TAM is an "expansive" mod. Presumably, "expensive" is meant.

English texts need some refinements. "Expensive" is right.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In 200 AD you are at 60-65% of whole turn time-scale, although historical ironworking came in BC era

What this suggests to me is that the years/turn ratios need to be fiddled with.

 

[Whitefire]

Huh, I'm usually through 3/4 of the tree by then (ahead of the curve). I play on Monarch, what difficulty were you on?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Monarch.

I've now reached the 6th C AD and am nearing the end of the tech-tree

Standard Med map.

 

[Whitefire]

Sounds like it's a well balanced game then if you're still finishing the tree by the end of the time limit. Why do we need Iron Working sooner?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Need and need ... it's an aesthetic issue. It just looks better if tech advancement is roughly in step with the date displayed.

 

[Whitefire]

Then by 200 AD, we should have Empire, and in 600AD, you should start "forgetting" techs.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Then by 200 AD, we should have Empire,

That's a problem how?

and in 600AD, you should start "forgetting" techs.

The mod ends with the early Dark Ages anyway.

 

[thamis]

I have to agree with Whitefire. The tech tree is meant to be finished when you finish the game, for a reasonably good player, at a difficulty level challenging for him.

Also, remember that many techs in reality got researched at the same time, or in a different order in different civilizations. If you want to, in TAM, you can have Iron Working in 1000 BC, if you work towards it. Or you can get it in 10 BC.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm not advocating any change to tech progress in terms of turns, I'm suggesting rejigging the year count (slower early on, faster in the late game).

 

[Boyd]

I concur with the last comment... although it is "just" a date, it does make me a bit crazy to be playing and realize that in 1000 BC none of the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Phoenecians, the Lydians and the Myceneans have iron working or are even vaguely close.

The other aspect of this (i.e. the long wait for some techs) is that major expansion can occur without the UU (e.g. Rome or the Hittites).

 

[Boyd]

i normally play at noble or prince to kreep some balance with the AI (and I am using 1.97 as it is mac compatible).

B

 

[Whitefire]

I'm not advocating any change to tech progress in terms of turns, I'm suggesting rejigging the year count (slower early on, faster in the late game).

Dude, Thamis would have to manually change all 600+ values for all speeds.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Is that so idiotically implemented? The sane thing would be having a list specifying sets of Xn turns à Yn years, like in Civ3.

Can you point me to where the year count is specified?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Some more observations:

Chi/'akva and Bat/'umi - spelt that way?

Text error (similar to the cities') when researching Aristocracy.

Slave Market mouseover text says "+-[unhappy face]".

Onagers make city defenses close enough to irrelevant. Maybe nerf them a bit?

 

[Boyd]

as a Mac user, I am still testing the 1.97 version and when I load the mod I get the four following dialogue boxes:

XML Load Error
Failed loading XML file xml\text\hittites.xml. [/AspyrBuild/depot/C iv4/Source/Win/FirePlace/Win32/FXml.cpp:140] Error paring XML File
File: xml\text\hittites.xml
Reason: (null)
Line: 0,0
Source: (null)

XML Load Error
LoadXML call failed for xml\text\hittites.xml
Current XML file is: xml\text\tam_religions.xml

XML Load Error
Failed loading XML file xml\text\tam_civilopedia_buildingprojects.xml. [/AspyrBuild/depot/C iv4/Source/Win/FirePlace/Win32/FXml.cpp:140] Error paring XML File -
File: xml\text\tam_civilopedia_buildingprojects.xml
Reason: (null)
Line: 0,0
Source: (null)

XML Load Error
LoadXML call failed for xml\text\tam_civilopedia_buildingprojects.xmll
Current XML file is: xml\text\tam_bonus.xml

Once the game gets rolling I have the following bugs:

The Hittite cities (and some of the Roman ones) are muddled up - txt-civ-desc-Capua for example.

The Hittite leader and civ name have the same problem.

the founding religion icon is off - so if i found heliopolitan gods in thebes let's say, thebes displays the zorarostarion icon and all the following cities show the heliopolitan gods founding icon. same thing for olympian gods, etc.

I will post this on the Tam Dev site too.

Is this a Mac problem or a 1.97 issue?

 

[ambrox62]

I think it's a Mac or installation problem.
I play TAM 1.97 on regularar basis and I never had such problems.

I suggest you to re-install TAM and apply the Unofficial 1.97 XML patch