The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[thamis]

Why don´t you ask Rhye how he did in his mod to change the name of a city according to it´s location and owner? For example, if you are the romans and found a city in the east coast of spain, it will be called Valentia. If the spanish capture it, it will become Valencia. It is a nice touch, and perhaps settle some of this debate.

Another nice thing is the civs appearing at different ages, but it is much difficult to implement.

I did check that. It is technically very easy to do with Python. But it is SHITLOADS of work, because for every possible city name and every possible civilization capturing it you have to write IF THEN loops...

Maybe we could come up with a Python routine that gets all the info from an XML file, but then again... lots of work.

For TAM we want functionality over features, so this one is far back on the priority list.

 

[Gunner]

Have you taken a look at the latest version of Rhye's Catapult thamis? I think you're describing how that feature was implemented in the Greek World scenario. He has it set up differently now I think.

 

[Elhoim]

I´m craving for the bigger map... But this is nice anyway! I´ll do some roman empire building in the meantime...

 

[Ankenaton]

La Cosa Nostra?

Not really; just an attempt at some humor

 

[Ick of the East]

ROFL... and how about Julius Ceasar in the Rome of 4000BC ? That makes perfect sense ? Ok.

No it doesn't. Sorry I'm not as black & white as you might expect.
I think the whole idea of a single leader throughout the ages is silly. I would much rather see a list of nations in the diplomatic column than a list of names.
But I can't see how we can change that. And the leader heads do add something to the game.

As for Carthage - Kart-Hadasht, I'm all for the later, but I can almost understand using Carthago.

I guess I'll have to edit Alexandria and Heliopolis out of my own file

 

[Ankenaton]

I was commenting a word you plain simply invented, specifically "real egyptian" . You haven't replied back on anything I wrote, especially on my question about that, yet you managed to write quite many lines and to define my comparisons as mishmash (without explaining why) and to state that I do not argue in an effective way (without explaining why or how should I do it) ? Ah well... you have a future as a politician: a person who can fill an interview of words without having said anything and answered to any question.

What I have a future in is neither here nor there; however I define a "REAL Egyptian" as someone who was native to the land of Egypt prior to the arrival of the Macedonian Greek's. It is my viewpoint to which I am entitled to and if it continues to cause distress for you, then that is unfortunate. I will refrain from responding in kind, and as I originally posted I will provide Thamis with another city list for Egypt.

 

[Ick of the East]

Greece may have found the city, but it was Egyptian (politically) after a very short time.

Right. I don't know why you think I don't understand this.

Haven't you ever estabilished a city, with a name from your list, on a foreign shore only to have it overwhelmed by that foreign culture a short time later?
The name stays the same, but the city is absorbed into that culture.
That is a perfect example of what happened in the real world with Alexandria and what makes this such a cool game.

There is nothign in my suggestion to prevent Alexandria from being established by the Greeks and absorbed by the local culture (Egyptian or otherwise). I'm just suggesting that we attempt to better reflect historical processes (if not actual events), otherwise what's the point of a historic MOD? Sure, gameplay must always take precedence, but I can't see how this takes away from the gameplay in the slightest.

(My little brother has been to Iskandria in Iraq. The exact same thing happened to that Alexandria. I'm just hoping I don't see Iskandria on a list of Babylonian cities

 

[Pvblivs]

There is nothign in my suggestion to prevent Alexandria from being established by the Greeks and absorbed by the local culture (Egyptian or otherwise). I'm just suggesting that we attempt to better reflect historical processes (if not actual events), otherwise what's the point of a historic MOD? Sure, gameplay must always take precedence, but I can't see how this takes away from the gameplay in the slightest.

I see it . This what you describe is very unlikely to ever happen in any game in TAM. Even if you hardcode the Greek to found a city near Alexandria in Egypt. So actually Egypt will never have an Alexandria.

What you're suggesting, as I already said, may be very nice and accurate but almost impossible to model for this special case, and impossible at all for most other possible cases.

 

[Ick of the East]

I see it . This what you describe is very unlikely to ever happen in any game in TAM. Even if you hardcode the Greek to found a city near Alexandria in Egypt. So actually Egypt will never have an Alexandria.

What you're suggesting, as I already said, may be very nice and accurate but almost impossible to model for this special case, and impossible at all for most other possible cases.

Good that we understand each other. But maybe we have a different take on the game. I see it as a set of relatively accurate initial conditions and processes that could possibly, but not necessarily or even desireably, lead to the exact historic world as it played out.

In my take, Greece could build their Alexandria anywhere and it may or may not be absorbed by the locals. And in my take, native Egyptians would never build a city named after a Greek conqueror. It is in the process and not in the result where I seek authenticity. After all, if the result was always the same - why play?

So the fact that it is impossible to model the building of Alexandria by the Greeks and having it absorbed by the Egyptians doesn't even enter into my thinking. The fact that it could still happen is great fun. I thought that one of the base ideas of CIV was the replaying of history and watching how differently things turned out.
That's probably where we are all diverging.

 

[Pvblivs]

I see it as a set of relatively accurate initial conditions and processes that could possibly, but not necessarily or even desireably, lead to the exact historic world as it played out.

Ok, I see your point very well now and you're right, after all this game is about playing your own history. The only thing I'm bothering about is the following: Egyptian Alexandria is old enough to be very significant for us in TAM. In history Alexandria soon (about 1AD) grew to the greatest and most important city of Egypt. Thus I just cannot accept dropping Alexandria for Egypt. Though we can still "define" that we ignore Ptolemy Egypt for our initial conditions and say "This isn't Egyption". This would be our definition and so I would have to accept it

After all, if the result was always the same - why play? [...] I thought that one of the base ideas of CIV was the replaying of history and watching how differently things turned out.

That's not the point. Of course - this is the game. The questions are: "What are our initial conditions? What is Egyptian?" Ptolemy Egypt for sure was an important era of Egypt, but for sure not the most important and maybe it was more a Greek than a truly identifying era for Egypt.

But I'd like to add that there is an interesting point about replaying history as it was. I very often (in Civ I and II) replayed on the world map as Egypt or England trying to develop my empire with a history-like outcome. Just wanted to state this, that games are not only "I want to make it different" but also "Wow, I want to experience something similar, I want to get to know how it was". See those interesting scenarios of DoctorG as an example of what I mean.

 

[onedreamer]

I define a "REAL Egyptian" as someone who was native to the land of Egypt prior to the arrival of the Macedonian Greek's. It is my viewpoint to which I am entitled to and if it continues to cause distress for you, then that is unfortunate.

Never said you aren't entitled to have a viewpoint or that this causes me distress... how did you get this impression ? I was just curious on what you think it is a real egyptian. Thank you.

 

[onedreamer]

No it doesn't. Sorry I'm not as black & white as you might expect.
I think the whole idea of a single leader throughout the ages is silly. I would much rather see a list of nations in the diplomatic column than a list of names.
But I can't see how we can change that. And the leader heads do add something to the game.

Heh, it's not a matter of leader... there wasn't any Rome in 4000 BC.
I suggest you to play Rhye's mod. He's putting up a replay of history that you might like.

btw, in short, IMO you are underestimating the importance of Alexandria in the history of Egypt. I do not think it is fair to Egypt to remove that city from its list, and hence from its history. I also do not think it is fair to call Carthage with its carthaginian name, when hundreds of people won't know it. It's so easy to edit the XML file that I don't think we should even discuss about that.

I thought that one of the base ideas of CIV was the replaying of history and watching how differently things turned out.
That's probably where we are all diverging.

I think the point of Civ is not exactly to replay history. That's the point of a mod like Rhye's. Civ is playing a game throughout history, with elements that are part of the history of mankind, but not a replay. I personally don't find a replay very interesting or funny, if I want to replay history I read books. I tried Rhye's mod but quit when half my civ was absorbed by a new born one for an arbitrary event. There are some guidelines in the definition of strategic game I think, and forcing events that disrupt the gameplay of a player and that he cannot control at all, is not part of them. What I mean is that Civ is a strategic game, first off, and that as background it has the history of mankind. But it shouldn't be a replay of it with a different final. Think about it...: not even the start is the same

 

[onedreamer]

In the case of Rome, a new city list would also be good: Prioritize Italian cities, but also include important ones from Gaul and Germania (with their Latin names).

I'll work on this list Thamis.

 

[thamis]

Well, does anyone know the Egyptian (Coptic or Arabic) names for Alexandria and Heliopolis? Alexandria is something like Iskindria in Arabic IIRC.

 

[thamis]

Have you taken a look at the latest version of Rhye's Catapult thamis? I think you're describing how that feature was implemented in the Greek World scenario. He has it set up differently now I think.

I haven't, but I'll look into it.

 

[Pvblivs]

Well, does anyone know the Egyptian (Coptic or Arabic) names for Alexandria and Heliopolis? Alexandria is something like Iskindria in Arabic IIRC.

From en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Alexandria:
Alexandria (Greek: Αλεξάνδρεια, Coptic: Rakotə, Arabic: الإسكندرية Al-ʼIskandariya)

But I think that in Arabian it is rather wrong for our TAM as in TAM it is never an Arab city. So the coptic version (as this is modern Egyptian, though no common language of Egyptians anymore) which comes to importance after 300/400 AD.

 

[thamis]

Ok, let's call it Rakota then!

 

[Ick of the East]

Ok, let's call it Rakota then!

In recent science news I read of core sample being taken from the harbour of Alexandria. When dated, they showed that it was inhabited long before the Ptolemaic city. Which makes sense, being in such an ideal location for a port city.
But they didn't mention any name being associated with it.
The original city may very well be remembered in the Coptic tongue as Rakota, but I don't know. I'm all for it though.

Heliopolis was called Iunu.

And Elephantine was called Abu or Yabu.

Are you really going to have Nubia on the new map? That would be great. Egypt is far too secure on it's Southern border.
But of course, then it would be Nubia who would be too secure. We need Abbyssinia and Sheba!

 

[thamis]

Thanks for those city names. We'll use them!

Nubia will have a slightly worse starting position than Egypt, thus be weaker and happy to be secure.

 

[Ick of the East]

I think the point of Civ is not exactly to replay history.

Yes, I think I made that exact point, didn't I? If anything, the point is to explore alternatives.
Which is why I don't need an Alexandria at the mouth of the Delta unless the Greeks happen to conquer Egypt and want to build it (or rename it) there.

My whole point is not to introduce any easily avoidable anachronisms. Rome (and other cities) in 4000BC are pretty much unavoidable for this game, and so can be ignored.

Anyway, I'm having such a great game that all of this would be icing on the cake.