The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[Shqype]

Despite the great unit variety I find myself only using a very small handful of them. So many of the bonuses are either useless or just not good enough to make one unit as good or better than another of the same period. I would suggest scrapping most of the "built in" bonuses that have been added to the units and letting the player's choice of promotions dictate what their units are good at, the AI does quite good with selecting appropriate promotions as well. Some of the UU bonuses could be handled the same way, with a free promotion. I don't think the upgrade options need to be removed for any of the units, but perhaps they could be a bit more expensive, maybe change the per production cost to 3 (or even 4) and reduce the base upgrade cost so it would be less expensive early on but substantially more expensive for the later game units.

I greatly disagree with this. That defeats the whole purpose of the system we have in place. Certain units have advantages against some units and disadvantages against others: this not only mimicks the real life effectiveness and historical accuracy of ancient warfare, but forces a player to choose a mixture of units to be most effective. If you want to soften up a stack of units, use skirmisher units. If you have a stack of heavy units, use javelineers to inflict as much damage as possible. Need to defend your cities? Use Spearmen. Need to assault an enemy city? Use medium units or mounted units. Want to destroy some skirmishers that are hurting your heavy units? You've got chariots for that.

The only unit type that I say we can do away with is the mounted skirmisher. I really don't use them excessively and feel that if we removed them we could get rid of some clutter when deciding what unit to build. Additionally, I'll have the siege units upgrade to each other as well as increase their defensive strength.

I've been working on releasing an update that addresses many of the balance issues and concerns mentioned within the last several pages. Hopefully within a day or two I should be done with that.

 

[AndreasS]

I agree. The amount of, and the type of units chosen, seems to be about right. The balancing between them is another case, thats a thing that always will be in progress I guess, as long as this mod is in life.

Looks forward to your updates, and further versions, this mod is getting better and better for every update. I have trust in you guys, keep up the good work. I can feel how you imagine this mod complete, and thats a really nice image......

 

[Seven05]

I greatly disagree with this. That defeats the whole purpose of the system we have in place. Certain units have advantages against some units and disadvantages against others: this not only mimicks the real life effectiveness and historical accuracy of ancient warfare, but forces a player to choose a mixture of units to be most effective. If you want to soften up a stack of units, use skirmisher units. If you have a stack of heavy units, use javelineers to inflict as much damage as possible. Need to defend your cities? Use Spearmen. Need to assault an enemy city? Use medium units or mounted units. Want to destroy some skirmishers that are hurting your heavy units? You've got chariots for that.

Right, I love the variety for the sense of flavor it adds. But to give you some examples of how they aren't offsetting each other play a game and build only the most powerful melee unit you can at the time and one unit for collateral damage per attack stack (javelin, archer, catapult, etc). You can go to town on your opponents and nothing will stop you. In the early game my assault stack is one javelin and as many spearmen as I can build. No siege weapons, no archers and no mounted units. They just aren't different enough and what little advantages they have aren't enough to offset normal (terrain, etc) bonuses and regular promotions. And on top of that some bonuses are a bit too good making a few of the units reign supreme over all others. Take the spearman for example, they receive bonuses against mounted units when attacking and defending, to me defending makes sense but the attacking part seems a bit odd, especially since the mounted unit receives no defensive bonus and can't withdrawl when they're defending anyway. They also receive bonuses against the mounted skirmishers, I would think the mounted skirmishers would be the one unit spearmen would be very ineffective against since they don't need to charge the spearmen.

Like I said, I love the variety it just seems that most of the differences are either overpowered or insignificant. Javelins may have a bonus against heavy units but the heavy unit is a better all around unit for either offense or defense. By the time you have barracks & council of elders all of your heavy unit will be able to roll out of your cities with +25% against skirmishers anyway, aggreassive leaders will have +10 strength, +25 vs skirmishers, +25& against mounted units and +25% against heavy units making them the single all purpose unit with +35% bonuses against the three most common unit types in the game on top of a higher base strength.

Here's an example to show what really happens. Javelins receive a 25% bonus against heavy units which typically have around 33% more strength. So if you have to chose between armored javeliners & armored spearmen the armored spearmen are always a better choice for defense. For offense the collateral damage is a nice plus for the javelins but in many cases their lower strength means they'll almost always die when attacking unless you get a lucky withdrawl and in any case they'll frequently do little to no damage to the unit they attack (unless it's a weak defender in which case the spearmen would have crushed them). Now, add in the weapon bonus that is available to the spearmen but not the javelins and you have another advantage for the spearmen of up to 30%. If the spearmen are defending a city they'll have even more bonuses before even figuring what promotions (the wildcard here) you or they have. So in the end the javelin is effectively worthless except for the very minor collateral damage and the slighly reduced cost, both of which are negated by the fact that you'll need more of them to accomplish the same task. Take the same scenario and replace your armored javelin with a spearmen and you may still die when attacking even though your odds will be substantially better. However, you will do considerable damage to the unit you attack, in most cases this will greatly exceed the total damage done by the javeliner including collateral damage to other units.

The main reason I suggested removing the unit specific bonuses is that it eliminates the predictability of the game. If I know that skirmishers receive an extra city defense bonus and a bonus against heavy units I'm going to give all of my attack units the cover promotion since skirmishers will be the primary city defenders. If I know that axemen get an extra city attack bonus I'm going to give my "counter attack" units a bonus against medium units. But, if the AI/player choses their own bonuses through promotions I have no idea what is going to be used for what purpose. You may find axemen defending cities and archers attacking them, and suddenly I have to adapt, I have to mix up my own formations more because it won't be so obvious what everyone else will be using. I may not be forced to use different units in every case but I will be forced to use different promotions and that will go a long way towards controlling how easily a stack of experienced units can walk through much larger stacks of defenders.

If you really are attached to the different bonuses maybe you could just review them and try to give units bonuses that aren't available as promotions or remove some promotions so that units with native bonuses are more valuable. Or even re-work promotion prerequisites and replace the unit specific bonuses with unit specific free promotions. For example, make the City Raider II promotion require City Raider I and make city Raider I require a promotion or tech that nobody can get normally. Then, give that City Raider I promotion as a free promotion to specific units like the axemen and they'll be the only units in the game with city raider promotions giving them some real value. You could do the same with archers & the Garrison promotion, mounted units & the flanking promotions, etc.

 

[thamis]

I agree with you that we still have to figure out a good use for javelineers. In the next update, all skirmishers will do a LOT more collateral damage.

We're probably also removing the mounted skirmisher unitcombat, and will merge them with skirmishers.

Your observations are all good and valuable, but maybe can you give some specific suggestions?

 

[thamis]

Here's a Mediterranean map for TAM (1.9) with half the tiles of the standard map and 9 civs. This version is complete and tested, but even so I'll probably revise it before posting it in a more permanent place. Feel free to suggest changes.

Hey, I made a few changes to your map and we will include it in the next version if you're happy with it.

The changes are:
- Added flatlands in Rome starting position
- Removed horses near Rome
- Removed double resources in Portugal
- Added some more plains & grass in Libya (for historial accuracy)

 

[Seven05]

Specific examples... Ok, I'll give that a shot, except I'm at work so I may not remember all of the values exactly

One thing that may be worth considering is to even out the strength (iCombat) values for the non-unique units. For example the spearmen are 4 while the javelins are 3, if they were both strength 4 the disadvantages of the javelins would be considerably lessened. You could also change the unitcombat bonuses to unit class attack/defense mods. A good example of this would be spearmen who could receive a defensive bonus against early mounted units (chariots) but not later mounted units (cavalry) or javelins which could receive an attack bonus against spearmen. The general idea being better defined advantages for specific units to make their role more clear and make them the obvious best choice without making them overpowered. This also means the advantages can be greater, so the spearmen could receive +200% defense against specific mounted units or the javelins could receive +50% attack against specific heavy units. A larger bonus like this makes them so much better suited to a particular role that they can't be replaced by a unit that has higher strength with a single promotion added on.

As it stands right now a javelin (3) with +25% vs heavy units will rarely beat a spearman (4) with no other modifiers. A javelin with 4 strength and +50% attacking spearmen would be brutal, the spearmen would need Combat1, Copper Weapons and Cover, even then they'd only be at +45% so they would need to attack the javelin for their best odds and the javelin would need to attack them for their best odds.

Archers could benefit from the same treatment, a boost in strength combined with some nice defensive bonuses. For example if archers were up to strength 4 with +50% defense against spearmen, +100% defense against javelins and +25% attack against archers they would need to be countered by other archers and even then the defender would probably have better than 25% in defensive bonuses anyway.

Alternatively, you remove the pre-defined bonuses and give them free promotions. For example give the javelins the free pinch promotion so they receive their +25% against heavy units that way. Combined with equal strengths and making those promotions unattainable by other unitcombat classes you end up with a similar net effect. If both spearmen and javelins are strength 4 but javelins receive their free +25% against heavy units they would be the better choice when faced with heavy units, especially if heavy units couldn't get the pinch promotion themselves. You could even remove the free promotion entirely and just make it so they are the only units that can get it in the first place. So now instead of all javelins having the 25% bonus only the experienced units would have it and then only if you chose it. So if you're facing an opponent who isn't using spearmen at all your javelins aren't useless, you just give them a different promotion. Of course this has to be applied to all units and all promotions to work. If javelins could get the cover promotion and the pinch promotion there would be no reason to build spearmen. So, a complete example may be something like only skirmishers can get pinch & garrison, only medium units can get city raider, woodsman & guerilla, only heavy units can get formation & (whatever the promotion is against medium units), only siege weappons could get accuracy & bombard and only mounted units can get cover & flanking. Then the remaining promotions could be available to them all (Combat, medic, march, commando, drill).

All that leaves you with are minor differences between the units, so a javelin would have higher strength than an archer but the archer would do collateral damage to more units. The other unitcombats don't have as many simultaneous units so there isn't much to worry about with them.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

First off, I greatly enjoy TAM, it has revitilized my interest in Civ IV.

Secondly, I echo Seven's comments concerning units. Well, to some degree anyway.

I use mixed stacks, and have found seige weapons to be a waste of time.

My best stacks have Javelineers, Axemen, Spearmen, and Chariots in them. Javelineers are cheep to build, and with Barracks, and Elder Council, I can give them extra strike capability, which seems to grant me a higher chance at success than the odds would otherwise dictate. So, my first wave in the assault usually costs me a couple Javelineers. However, those that survive, usually end up becoming pretty nasty over the course of my campaigns. So, the collateral damage gets the ball rolling, and after a few attacks with my Javelineers, the target city is usually very soft. Then, I roll in with Axemen with City Assault promotions and str1 promo. This usually takes out or weakens the spearmen or archers that the AI holds in reserve. Then, I mop up with Chariots, and fortify my spearmen in the new city.

I do think some of the bonuses are a bit odd, but I've adapted, and I actually like what they are meant to do.

I would lend some supporting arguments in a compramizing fashion:
1) Why are archers weeker than Javelineers?
2) Javelineers should have bonuses against all mounted units in offense and defense mode. The purpose of Javelineers was to strike down chariot riders. Archers were deployed against infantry, and early bows didn't have the strength or momentum to stop chariots.
3) If you keep mounted skirmishers, then give them a bonus sufficient enough to nutralize the bonus that spearmen get against mounted units.
- Furthermore, I would build mounted skirmishers if they were used to protect my mounted units...ala how they were used in history...
4) Archers, well this goes in support of point 1... Why would I build Archers, if I can build Javelineers? The extra strike does not make up for the weaker strength of the unit, plus the archer doesn't have the bonuses that the Javelineer has.
5) I'm not sure why, but I've taken on walled cities with 25% defense bonus and not suffered the level of casualties that I thought I should. Perhaps I'm lucky or perhaps it's my strategy...not sure, but I don't use seige towers or sappers.

All of the above being said, I still love how bloody and chaotic the wars are in your mod. It feels very close to the brutality of the period. Making some tweeks in the units, along the lines of what Seven and I have written would only improve on this concept. (IMHO)

Specifically:
Base Archer = Base Javelineer (Skirmishers) (STR 3, same hammer cost)
Jav gets offense and defense bonus of 50% vs. Chariots.
Archer gets bonus city defense (50%)
Both get one extra strike.
Both do 20% collateral damage base.
Both get 20% hill defense bonus.
Both get 20% withdrawal chance.
Base Chariot has 5 STR, gets 25% bonus vs. Medium Units, a 30% withdraw chance, and no defense bonuses.
Base Chariot Archer (mounted skirmisher) has 5 STR, 1 extra strike, and gets a bonus (25%) vs. Skirmishers, and does 20% collateral damage; no defense bonuses.
Spearmen (Heavy Unit) starts with 5 STR, and gets 50% bonus off/def vs. all mounted units and 25% city defense bonus.
Axemen (Medium Unit) starts with 4 STR, and gets 50% bonus vs. Medium and Heavy Units.
Swordsmen (Heavy Unit) starts with 6 STR and gets 25% city attack bonus.

Seige towers and sappers...
Sapper defense str of 2, rest the same.
Seige towers str of 3, rest the same.

Bottom line is every unit has a roll, and defenders have the upper hand, especially if the attacker is ill-equiped.

The AI will build Javelineers to defend against Chariots and for "skirmishing" out of the city walls to weaken attackers.
The AI will build Archers to defend cities.
Mounted Skirmishers have a purpose...defend against skirmishers.
Spearmen have a purpose...defending cities and protection vs. mounted units.
Axemen have a purpose...cutting medium and heavy units to chum...
Swordsmen are very much vanilla, but they are now a "heavy unit" and are specialized to invade cities.

All-in-all, this would be very balance I think, especially if you fine-tuned the hammer production costs to improve the viability of specialized units vs. the mentality of simply dumping the bigges unit on the battle field.

I think this would also favor the use of mixed unit tactics.

Thoughts?

 

[Shqype]

Specific examples... Ok, I'll give that a shot, except I'm at work so I may not remember all of the values exactly

One thing that may be worth considering is to even out the strength (iCombat) values for the non-unique units. For example the spearmen are 4 while the javelins are 3, if they were both strength 4 the disadvantages of the javelins would be considerably lessened. You could also change the unitcombat bonuses to unit class attack/defense mods. A good example of this would be spearmen who could receive a defensive bonus against early mounted units (chariots) but not later mounted units (cavalry) or javelins which could receive an attack bonus against spearmen. The general idea being better defined advantages for specific units to make their role more clear and make them the obvious best choice without making them overpowered. This also means the advantages can be greater, so the spearmen could receive +200% defense against specific mounted units or the javelins could receive +50% attack against specific heavy units. A larger bonus like this makes them so much better suited to a particular role that they can't be replaced by a unit that has higher strength with a single promotion added on.

As it stands right now a javelin (3) with +25% vs heavy units will rarely beat a spearman (4) with no other modifiers. A javelin with 4 strength and +50% attacking spearmen would be brutal, the spearmen would need Combat1, Copper Weapons and Cover, even then they'd only be at +45% so they would need to attack the javelin for their best odds and the javelin would need to attack them for their best odds.

Archers could benefit from the same treatment, a boost in strength combined with some nice defensive bonuses. For example if archers were up to strength 4 with +50% defense against spearmen, +100% defense against javelins and +25% attack against archers they would need to be countered by other archers and even then the defender would probably have better than 25% in defensive bonuses anyway.

Alternatively, you remove the pre-defined bonuses and give them free promotions. For example give the javelins the free pinch promotion so they receive their +25% against heavy units that way. Combined with equal strengths and making those promotions unattainable by other unitcombat classes you end up with a similar net effect. If both spearmen and javelins are strength 4 but javelins receive their free +25% against heavy units they would be the better choice when faced with heavy units, especially if heavy units couldn't get the pinch promotion themselves. You could even remove the free promotion entirely and just make it so they are the only units that can get it in the first place. So now instead of all javelins having the 25% bonus only the experienced units would have it and then only if you chose it. So if you're facing an opponent who isn't using spearmen at all your javelins aren't useless, you just give them a different promotion. Of course this has to be applied to all units and all promotions to work. If javelins could get the cover promotion and the pinch promotion there would be no reason to build spearmen. So, a complete example may be something like only skirmishers can get pinch & garrison, only medium units can get city raider, woodsman & guerilla, only heavy units can get formation & (whatever the promotion is against medium units), only siege weappons could get accuracy & bombard and only mounted units can get cover & flanking. Then the remaining promotions could be available to them all (Combat, medic, march, commando, drill).

All that leaves you with are minor differences between the units, so a javelin would have higher strength than an archer but the archer would do collateral damage to more units. The other unitcombats don't have as many simultaneous units so there isn't much to worry about with them.

What version are you playing with? Javelineers have +50% vs. Heavy Units!

 

[Seven05]

Well that should show you how often I use them but like I said, I'm at work so I can't vouch for the accuracy of specific values.

Seriously, on monarch difficulty I build spearmen (hoplites) and then armored spearmen. Early in the game I'll put a javelin with each stack, by the time I have armored spearmen that's all I build until I can get fire catapults. If (and only if) I switch to a more defensive role I'll build a few stacks of 4-6 cavalry to deal with any AI players that are feeling daring enough to enter my land.

When business slows down next week I'll post a save to show you how well it works. It's funny really, just before the end of the game you can look at the unit statistics and see that aside from spearmen and armored spearmen I will build 2 workers, 2 settlers (this is because I'm a warmonger, no problem with the mod) and at most 4 javelins. If I manage to get greek fire early enough I'll build a few fire catapults since that lets my armies advance even quicker (less time healing after taking a city). Of course that works very well, but it isn't too fun when you have so many other units, so in most games I build a few other units so I feel like I have a diverse army.

Best way to see how the unit compare, put a stack of assorted units next to another stack in the WB and then attack one with the other. You'll see things like sappers defending before archers, damaged armored spearmen defending against armored spearmen when undamaged armored javelins are in the same stack.

These problems are significantly lower later in the game when you have armored infantry, pikemen and bowmen as things work out much better between them. However you can still get by just fine building nothing but armored infantry regardless of what your opponents have.

 

[Waterloo]

First let me congratulate to your magnificent Mod, I keep playing it, and the kids are just desperate, because they don't have a chance to get at it...

I am a Newbie, so may be it was all said before, but reading all posts in this thread just overwhelms my capacity.

1. I played TAM v 1.9 Prince Level Babylonians. Problem I Had, was that there are lots of poppy fields, but I actually can't use them. All I can build on those hills are mines or mills, but no groves? Is there some special tech needed? Regarding that I found nothing in the Civilopedia.

2. I played TAM v 1.9 Prince Level Gauls. I had a little war on my hands and started capturing enemy cities, while using catapults, I noticed that they did not inflict collateral damage, even when they had the promotion.

Did I overlook anything?

Thanks,

Waterloo

 

[thamis]

There seems to be some confusion as to which units are good for what.

Let me explain (for 1.9):

Archers: Do shitloads of collateral damage, have a high withdraw chance (soften up stacks). You can defend a city with archers by attacking the stack outside your city, softening it up.

Javelineers: Soften up stacks of heavy units, but not as effective as Archers in terms of colalteral damage. They're stronger though.

Siege units: Reduce city defense boni.

Fire catapult: Better archer.

Medium units (Axemen, Swordsmen): Attack cities.

Heavy units (Spearmen, Infantry): Defend cities or stacks.

We're still working on the balance. The mounted skirmisher group will become skirmishers in the next version.

Some of your ideas here were very good. I'm going to look into it.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

Has anyone noticed that Babylonia is really damn strong? It has plenty of resources and a fairly secure position: plains & desert to the west so not too much border conflicts with Phoenicia, and mountains to the north making defense against Kolchis and Hittites easy with spearmen. Plus there's no threat from east because the map ends there, so they're a pretty easy country for a huge conquest game. Of course I'm having great fun playing them now... the resources are so plentiful that I made Babylon and Ur into magnificent legendary cities really quick.

PS. I'd like the idea of shorter grudges. A good point.

If you want a challenge, try the Hittites!

P.S. The Gallic people also start in a relatively awesome and secure position. All you do as the Gallic people is to send out early settlers to occupy the choke points around the mountain ranges to the East and South.

The trick is to keep your economy humming along.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

1) Are the Gallic people going to start with Nature Worship tech in the next version? It really bugs me when I, as the Gallic people, can never beat the other civs to Animism.

2) Was the Ancient Anatolian Plateau really that Arid? I find it very difficult to build decent sized cities with the Hittites, with exception of the west coast, which is in constant threat from Greece in the early game. (I always take out the Lidians early on.)

3) I'm not much of a War Monger, well I'm not constantly at war anyway, and it bothers me that I can't get much of a Monopoly on the Wonders. Especially as the Hittites. I understand that this is very accurate concerning how Hittite society opperated, but I would like to have a fair shot at a Wonder that could help me pump out Great Engineers.

4) I do love the Challenge represented by the Hittite geography and proximity to potentially aggressive neighbors though. You have so much going so well in this simulation of the Ancient world. In fact, between this post and my post concerning possible adjustments for the units (not really necessary to begin with) I have only minor issues with the Mod.

5) You've worked very hard it would seem to get this mod to feel like a very close simulation to what actually happened in the Ancient world. In fact, it seems that it is really hard to be very effective if you play one of the historically minor civilizations...those without huge empire periods.

For example, the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians seem to grasp the vast majority of the wonders. (Through a mad gamble, the Hittites can build the three early religious wonders, Oracle of Dodona, Stonehenge, and the Oracle of Delphi.) In fact, it is tremendously difficult for me, in Anatolia to play any style other than conquest and have a decent shot at maintaining a high score.

I play on Prince and Monarch level, and am no dunce on strategy, and I am admittedly no expert.

Is the deck that severely stacked against the Hittites? Or is there really just one strategy that fits the Hittites...conquest?

To further my point, Phylosophical civs really have the upper hand, thanks to the many wonders that are available and their better starting positions, concerning resources and rivers and commerce tiles.

Any hints for playing the Hittites into an economic, cultural, technological, and military power house? I have found a way to keep my science rate at 100% for the whole game, but I don't seem to be generating enough science to keep up or get ahead of the AI.

 

[Seven05]

I almost feel bad for posting such long messages about the units. Honestly, I play this mod more than anything else right now so I don't want to sound like I'm complaining

Being the epitome of a warmonger I'll give Thamis my observations compared to his goal for unit uses.

Archers: Do shitloads of collateral damage, have a high withdraw chance (soften up stacks). You can defend a city with archers by attacking the stack outside your city, softening it up.

They are good for collateral damage, I'll give them that. As defenders their use is limited. Yes, you can use them to attack a stack outside the city but when the AI has done this to me it had very little, if any, effect on the outcome. A city with three spearmen is tougher than a city with two spearmen and two archers who attack me as I approach.

Javelineers: Soften up stacks of heavy units, but not as effective as Archers in terms of colalteral damage. They're stronger though.

I know they should work that way but something is missing. The only time I've ever felt the need to use them is early in the game when I have spearmen/hoplites with no weapon upgrades or promotions. Normally at that point of the game enemy cities are defended by javelins & archers so the only "bonus" they have is not giving the defender an extra bonus when attacking the javelin defenders. Later in the game when spearmen and other heavy units are common my own heavy units have weapon upgrades and substantial promotions, enough to overcome the defenders with little effort.

Siege units: Reduce city defense boni.

Unfortunately, the city bonus is normally so low they aren't needed. The highest I've encountered is 60% and combined with the issues described above I can normally just hit them with my heavy units and win anyway.

Fire catapult: Better archer.

That's an understatement Two fire catapults in a stack and no city defenders will stand before you.

Medium units (Axemen, Swordsmen): Attack cities.

I never use them. Compared to heavy units they have lower strength and that difference isn't offset by the city attack bonus. The sole exception to this for me has been the Roman Legionary which I will use in abundance.

Heavy units (Spearmen, Infantry): Defend cities or stacks.

Heavy units have been the mainstay of my armies. I use them for everything because they are good at everything. They defend my cities and conquer my enemies. The added strength they have compared to the other units is more than enough to make up for any bonus they lack.

PS- I noticed you have several chariots set to receive terrain bonuses but they are also set to receive no defensive bonuses so the terrain bonus you give them has no effect in the game.

 

[thamis]

1) Are the Gallic people going to start with Nature Worship tech in the next version? It really bugs me when I, as the Gallic people, can never beat the other civs to Animism.

Simple answer: No. Animism isn't "the gallic religion" but represents all religions that were nature-based, which includes the Dacians, Scythians, Iberians, Kolcheans, etc...

2) Was the Ancient Anatolian Plateau really that Arid? I find it very difficult to build decent sized cities with the Hittites, with exception of the west coast, which is in constant threat from Greece in the early game. (I always take out the Lidians early on.)

Not sure. It probably was less arid than it is today, which I think we've already changed in the map. There's much more desert there today.

3) I'm not much of a War Monger, well I'm not constantly at war anyway, and it bothers me that I can't get much of a Monopoly on the Wonders. Especially as the Hittites. I understand that this is very accurate concerning how Hittite society opperated, but I would like to have a fair shot at a Wonder that could help me pump out Great Engineers.

Build smithies, they really help.

5) You've worked very hard it would seem to get this mod to feel like a very close simulation to what actually happened in the Ancient world. In fact, it seems that it is really hard to be very effective if you play one of the historically minor civilizations...those without huge empire periods.

For example, the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians seem to grasp the vast majority of the wonders. (Through a mad gamble, the Hittites can build the three early religious wonders, Oracle of Dodona, Stonehenge, and the Oracle of Delphi.) In fact, it is tremendously difficult for me, in Anatolia to play any style other than conquest and have a decent shot at maintaining a high score.

That's intentional, even though we do count the Hittites to be one of the empire civs. I would suggest that you try to follow the Hittites' historical expansion, especially into northern Mesopotamia. That'll really give you a boost.

To further my point, Phylosophical civs really have the upper hand, thanks to the many wonders that are available and their better starting positions, concerning resources and rivers and commerce tiles.

We haven't looked at civ traits at all so far. The way they are right now is completely by chance. If anyone feels like looking into it, feel free.

Any hints for playing the Hittites into an economic, cultural, technological, and military power house? I have found a way to keep my science rate at 100% for the whole game, but I don't seem to be generating enough science to keep up or get ahead of the AI.

No civ can beat the AI without trading a lot. If you forget trading for a few turns and you get left behind, you really have a problem.

 

[HÄI]

We haven't looked at civ traits at all so far. The way they are right now is completely by chance. If anyone feels like looking into it, feel free.

Well, I thought about some logical onces. I don't have the mod open now so I don't know what they originally have.

- Babylon (Hammurabi)
Organized and spiritual perhaps? Both seem pretty logical.

- Gaul (Vercingetorix)
Aggressive at least, what other? Expansionist?

- Mycenae (Agamemnon)
Expansionist logically, philosophical or creative also logical. Can they have three? The Greeks are sad bastards in the mod...

- Rome (Caesar)
Organized and aggressive, they're expansive in the vanilla but aggressive is more useful military-wise.

- Scythia (Partatua)
No idea. Aggressive and expansive perhaps? They're sort of "barbarian".

- Egypt (Hatshepsut)
Industrial to help with wonders, spiritual also with the Pharaoh cult and all.

- Iberian Tribes (Viriato)
Same as Scythia, I don't know **** about them.

- Germanic Tribes (Arminius)
Aggressive. Expansive maybe then.

- Carthage (Dido)
Financial and creative/expansive.

- Lydia (Krisos)
Financial obviously. Aggressive perhaps, Kroisos was a conqueror.

- Phoenicia (Hiram)
Financial & expansive.

- Getae (Decebalus)
- Kolchis (Aeetes)
- Illyria (Teuta)

No idea, three weird states.

 

[thamis]

Ah, I forgot to mention one thing:

In the ancient times, pretty much all empires were very war-like. There weren't any peacenicks around. Thus, I suggest removing the Aggressive trait, and replacing it with something else. I would suggest Seafaring... now what boni would that give?

 

[HÄI]

Ah, I forgot to mention one thing:

In the ancient times, pretty much all empires were very war-like. There weren't any peacenicks around. Thus, I suggest removing the Aggressive trait, and replacing it with something else. I would suggest Seafaring... now what boni would that give?

Faster movement on sea, more income/food from sea squares? I don't play naval, don't know much... Should anyone but the Phoenicians get it? The Greek?

 

[Seven05]

Ah, I forgot to mention one thing:

In the ancient times, pretty much all empires were very war-like. There weren't any peacenicks around. Thus, I suggest removing the Aggressive trait, and replacing it with something else. I would suggest Seafaring... now what boni would that give?

Reduced production costs (50% maybe) for lighthouses, harbors.

The biggest advantage to the agressive trait right now is the cheap barracks. The free combat 1 promotion is a big advantage when combined with council of elders until everybody else has barracks & council of elders. As it stands right now it's a great way of giving specific civs an early war advantage, the effect it has on the Greek empire compared to Rome feels pretty accurate from a historic sense.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

Simple answer: No. Animism isn't "the gallic religion" but represents all religions that were nature-based, which includes the Dacians, Scythians, Iberians, Kolcheans, etc...

Still a great scenario

Not sure. It probably was less arid than it is today, which I think we've already changed in the map. There's much more desert there today.

I think I will follow your advice and what I read of their history. I will try it again, this time going all out against Babylon and Phoenecia. Hopefully, I can also secure the whole of Anatolia before Agamemnon gets ideas.

Build smithies, they really help.

Smithies grant great engineers? If that's true then I really have been missing something. Thank you for the tip. I hadn't been building them until I was close to iron working.

That's intentional, even though we do count the Hittites to be one of the empire civs. I would suggest that you try to follow the Hittites' historical expansion, especially into northern Mesopotamia. That'll really give you a boost.

Can't wait to get home from work and try that out

We haven't looked at civ traits at all so far. The way they are right now is completely by chance. If anyone feels like looking into it, feel free.

Here are my humble suggestions for civ traits given what I remember of the era (granted I'm a little sketchy on the Getae, Kolchis, and Scythians.)

Babylon: Industrious, Creative
Carthage: Organization, Financial (really wanted to go Aggressive and Organized or Financial...but I have to remember we're talking about Dido, not Hannibal...and there are already enough aggressive civs.)
Egypt: Spiritual, Industrious
Gaul: Aggressive, Industrious
Germanic: Expansive, Industrious
Getae: Expansive, Phylosophical
Hittites: Aggressive, Financial
Iberian: Spiritual, Creative
Illyria: Aggressive, Creative
Kolchis: Expansive, Spiritual
Assyria: Spiritual, Phylosophical (New Civ, place SE of Phoenicia and SW of Babylon)
Lydia: Financial, Creative
Mycenae: Aggressive, Phylosophical
Phoenicia: Financial, Industrious
Rome: Expansive, Organized
Scythia: Aggressive, Expansive

Some of the above are obviously unchanged, and others to reflect my interpretation of what I've read/learned in history of the period...

I don't necessarily think that either Gaul nor Germanic tribes were particularily industrious, however, I don't know what other trait to pair with either Aggressive or Expansive with either one, and chose Industrious to balance out the traits among the other civs. If they are both Creative, then only a couple civs would be industrious, and some civs are already Aggressive/Creative or Expansive/Creative and there are other conflicts.

If, however, you don't mind duplicating traits among civs in this mod, then by all means make these two Creative, and make some other civ Industrious where it might fit better.

No civ can beat the AI without trading a lot. If you forget trading for a few turns and you get left behind, you really have a problem.

This is true, and I do trade mightily, and I think my original statement was a tad bit dramatic. I do manage to stay even or just one or two techs behind the top AI.