TAM for CIV5

[Ick of the East]

It would make most sense to use the name of the Egyptian town that was on the site before Alexander remade the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhacotis

 

[ambrox62]

Replacing Alexandria with a different city name requires few seconds

The point is what Thamis thinks about it, because HE is "the ancient history"

 

[thamis]

The rule of TAM has always been:

Use the Greek or Latin name for those cities or other names that are famous.
Use the local word for all other cities or names.

In this case that means that we call it Alexandria, because that's what most people would expect.

 

[Nookie12]

Don't like civ5 at all.... . so I beg to finish the v0.92................................

P.S. and this mod is awesome ! thx for all who maked(and helped with it) this project . The only mod in which I enjoed AI playstyle(I closed my eyes for battering ram spam - the only thing that need to be solved)

and once more =) don't waste time on civ5 !! make a truly histirical mod(not microtactical civ5 mod)

 

[thamis]

I have to say that I love CIV5. I think it's a massive improvement upon CIV4. It's much simpler in its mechanics, more accessible, and still offers considerable strategic depth.

 

[Ick of the East]

The rule of TAM has always been:
In this case that means that we call it Alexandria, because that's what most people would expect.

I don't know. Would most people playing as Ramses, whose arch enemy is a Greek named Alexander, expect to build a city named after their arch enemy?

If Civ is about anything, it is about starting out with nothing and seeing how the world evolves as an alternate history.
If the Greeks can conquer Egypt again, then they can build Alexandria in the same location again, just as people would expect. Just as they built other Alexandrias around the world (Kandahar Afghanistan, Iskandriya Iraq).

As I noted before, you wouldn't have the Iroquois build New York City (or the Aztecs build Mexico City). This is exactly the same as Alexandria being built by the Egyptians.

If you were making a scenario that started post-Alexander, then of course Alexandria should be named and placed in that location, as people would expect. But that's not what TAM is.

 

[Nookie12]

So there will be no v0.92 ? =( I think there is alot of people who does not like casualisation of the CIV5 gameplay (ye.. the new battle tactick looks great but they removed so much other aspects, and the diplomacy on the level of some RTS dissapointed me)

So.... Plz finish the 0.92 version for those fans of this mod who really enjoy to play what it looks like right now(the only thing that have to be done is missing late infantry models and do something to AI that he never build like the 2 warriors and 10 battering RaM armies agian)

 

[graywarden]

So there will be no v0.92 ? =( I think there is alot of people who does not like casualisation of the CIV5 gameplay (ye.. the new battle tactick looks great but they removed so much other aspects, and the diplomacy on the level of some RTS dissapointed me)

So.... Plz finish the 0.92 version for those fans of this mod who really enjoy to play what it looks like right now(the only thing that have to be done is missing late infantry models and do something to AI that he never build like the 2 warriors and 10 battering RaM armies agian)

The intention is to complete the CIV4 TAM series with Version 1.0 at about the time CIV5 TAM really gets rolling, which as it appears could be some time. The true modders in the TAM DEV team indicate that it will take some real work to build a MOD from the CIV5 Engine. So that means l will continue to test the current TAM and keep the team working on our To-Do list until we get to that 1.0 ....... at a minimum......

 

[vogtmurr]

Thanks Graywarden
I have to say I'm quite happy with the appearance in v0.91 of attack bonuses instead of the many defense bonuses. It has a much better feel to the game play and simplifies unit attributes. Terrain defense bonuses are already strong enough, I would even like to see basic forest defense reduced to 25%, combined hills and forests becomg 50%. I was a little unhappy to see hoplites and some other units be accorded only the strength of spearmen, which have such a short technology life span in the game. I would add a third unique unit for each civilization, and make it a progression such as hoplite as armoured spearman to phalanx as pikeman, as I had suggested in another thread suggestions for enlarged game. Maybe each civilization also gets a unique national unit that you can only have 5 of; Immortals as Persian medium spearmen/archers, Companions as Greek medium cavalry, Praetorians for Rome, Sacred Band for Carthage, etc. And while we are it why pick Agamemnon as archaic Greek leader when the Romans have Caesar and Scipio ?

I don't know how difficult some of these suggestions would be to implement, and what impact they would have on game resources and memory, but if there is way to mitigate that, I would enlarge the map to cover 10 deg N to 60 deg N; 10 deg W to 100 deg E, and make it 100 x 220. That should not sacrifice detail in the Mediterranean, but you could literally change the title to Ancient Eurasia while still keeping the scope to Europe, Near East, and North Africa. And populate it with 9-10 more civilizations. The effect of this would be to make the game appear to have a similar shell structure to Rise of mankind, with 34 civs. Don't know if that would help or hinder the project, but the goal is enriched game play without leaving too much empty space for barbarians to overpopulate.

 

[Ick of the East]

I wouldn't go that far East. Just as far as Alexander did would be best, I think.
China had no influence on TAM, other than exporting silk.

 

[vogtmurr]

Actually I agree, 90 or even 80 deg E is far enough to include Bactria without the entire Indian subcontinent. Even at that a Mauryan (Indian), Bactrian and Xiong-nu civilization could be added to flesh out the scenario in the east. Actually, since longitudinal distances are shorter at higher latitudes, on a flat projection the eastern border might 'bend' from about 80 deg E in the south to 90 deg E in the north. And similarly in the west. But, these dimensions would be sound and permit encompassing a great area of historical interest. A sub-saharan African culture, Ethiopia (Axum), and Arabia in the south, with exploration around the Arabian peninsula. A Gaelic, Scandinavian and Slavic culture in the north, with navigation in the Baltic. This would cover the areas that many of these civilizations had contact with in ancient times. There also needs to be a few more realistic features like mountains and oases in the mid-Sahara. Maybe the Etruscans would fit on the Italian riviera, and Israel can be squeezed in to the Middle East. But I know it is pretty ambitious for game designers to expand this to 34 civilizations - the larger scale map focused on the Mediterranean and Middle east is still a good compromise.

 

[krasny]

Well I think TAMV should be pretty much the same as TAMIV, only with one unit per hex.

Indeed TAM may make Civ5 worth playing.

 

[vogtmurr]

Truthfully I'm looking forward to the ultimate TAM in BtS rather than Civ5. The map scale is really too small (meaning each hex is rather a large area), to only allow 1 unit per hex. I could handle a limitation of maybe 5, 7, 9 or 12 units per hex depending on map scale. The only way to effectively make it a tactical level game is to have a zoom in mode for battles where you get to arrange your units, give them pre-ordained orders, etc.

 

[krasny]

Indeed, it may be easier to mod the existing Civ4 TAM to have limited stacking, than to turn Civ5 into a game worth playing.

 

[graywarden]

Indeed, it may be easier to mod the existing Civ4 TAM to have limited stacking, than to turn Civ5 into a game worth playing.

From the initial reports of the TAM-DEV code team that is the initial report I have gotten.