TAM for CIV5
- Thread starter thamis
- Start date
No, I didn't; as I said, I may have given up too early. (I also had problems with the wonders taking up the whole screen and I couldn't see my units.!) I don't mind giving it another try.
Best wishes,
Breunor
graywarden
King
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 819
Breunor,
good to see you again. .91 was a good improvement from .090 sorry it took us so long.
Ick of the East
Chieftain
One little thing that always bugged me was the city of Alexandria being on the Egyptian city list.
If the Greeks manage to conquer Egypt and build Alexandria there (or anywhere else - they built a lot of them) , hey, great. But to have the Egyptians build Alexandria is no different than having a Native American civilization building New York City.
That's my pet peeve and I'm sticking to it!
Ick of the East
Chieftain
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
While I would go against renaming it, I say that moving it to greek city list and compleately remove it from egyptian would be a better idea, not replacing it, and if we were to add the previous city, thinking of its importance, I guess it would end up at the end of the city list, so then it might be better to leave it out.
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)
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)
While I agree that CivV is certainly not at it's best yet, we should indeed get something good out of it too (and since the team who made the CivIV version mostly agreed to continiue, you can look upon it as an improved CivV version on its way 
)
)
Ick of the East
Chieftain
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.
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)
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
King
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 819
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......
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.
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
Chieftain
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.
China had no influence on TAM, other than exporting silk.
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.
