The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

Wikipedia for Cimmerians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians
Great Leader: Teushpa
Origin: Northern shores of black Sea/Present day Crimea possible.
Apparently, Cimmerians predate Scythians, and are significantly differentiated from Scythians and Thracians (who may be decended from a western branch of Cimmerians.)
Capital: ???
Cities: (Could use Crimean city names???)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
Gomara
Crimea
Gyumri

 

[Tiger3416]

Is it misleading to say that the Parthian empire was a Persian empire? That's what I meant. And then, further, to say that the Medes could have ruled the Persian empire but didn't (due to Cyrus the Great).

And Thamis: yes, I meant the Kolchis. I get those two confused somehow...

-- Hypnotoad

Ancient Iran was made up of several tribes; the Medes, the Persians, the Parthians, etc. When one of these tribes came to dominance the name of the empire changed with it. So the Median, Persian, Parthian, and so on empires; where all basically the same, just with different ruling dynasties.

But all I was trying to say was that the Medes and Persians could be combined and still be historically accurate.

 

[Shqype]

Ancient Iran was made up of several tribes; the Medes, the Persians, the Parthians, etc. When one of these tribes came to dominance the name of the empire changed with it. So the Median, Persian, Parthian, and so on empires; where all basically the same, just with different ruling dynasties.

But all I was trying to say was that the Medes and Persians could be combined and still be historically accurate.

That's what I was thinking; but, they are needed to prevent Persia from growing too powerful. The Medes act as balance.

 

[kevin2350]

Delete your old TAM folder, reinstall the new version by extracting it into the your MAIN civ4 folder.

Tnank you, I shall do that immediately
Kevin

 

[Harrier]

Sea Peoples

QI. You had these in the Civ3 version of TAM.

They were not really a civilization, rather a confederation of minor tribes who raided coastal regions - but did not settle. More of a barbarian tribe than an actual Civ.

 

[Ankenaton]

Here are a two suggestions for Nubia/Kush flag decal. I guess (and hope) the Egyptologists and Nubiologists wants to have their saying in this too.
View attachment 131694View attachment 131695
"Land of the Bow" and "Nubian Bowman"

The Kushite archer was famous throughout the ancient world and I would go with that symbol. I was also thinking along the lines of a heiroglyphic falcon. Mayan Raptor or Ick of the East might have other suggestions.

 

[Ick of the East]

The Kushite archer was famous throughout the ancient world and I would go with that symbol. I was also thinking along the lines of a heiroglyphic falcon. Mayan Raptor or Ick of the East might have other suggestions.

Edit: I should have clicked on Ingvina Freyr's attachments before posting!
I think the first one, the glyph for "Land of the Bow" would make an excellent flag. But in solid, not outline form.
==================================================
Maybe a simple, bold representation of the Nubian pyramid.

Nubian Pyramid

But since the Egyptians called Nubia "The Land of the Bow", I would say the bow is appropriate. Is that one above a Nubian bow?

Nubian Bowman
.

 

[Breunor]

Is it misleading to say that the Parthian empire was a Persian empire? That's what I meant. And then, further, to say that the Medes could have ruled the Persian empire but didn't (due to Cyrus the Great).

And Thamis: yes, I meant the Kolchis. I get those two confused somehow...

-- Hypnotoad

The Parthians gave the Romans a lot of trouble, but the Sassanid Persians were much more of a threat. Of course, Rome wasn't as strong by the third century, but the rise of the Sassanids was a crushing blow. When Gibbon lists the four major influences that lead to Rome's decline, he lists the rise of the 'Persians' (the Sassanids) as first.

Specifically, Shapur's second invasion (258 - 261) had a very real strong influence. Valerain was carried away in chains (never happened before to a Roman emperor). Indeed, Rome never recovered from the sack of Antioch, which from a pure power standpoint was (in my opinion) more damaging than the sack of Rome in 410 (although maybe not psychologically).

The Sassanids had a central taxation system and military systems that were more powerful than the Parthians had.


Best wishes,

Breunor

PS I haven't been on the boards in a bit. Sorry if this has already been covered.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I like the bow and line one. But we need to make the bow more curved to make it more visible. Can you do that?

It seems like the "land of the bow" suggestion was widely accepted. I'll remake the bow somewhat and fill the symbols (instead of outlines) as Ick of the East suggested, to make it more visible.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

[...] however, TAM, at least IMHO, isn't supposed to be very near to accurate, but close enough so as to give a good feeling for what the time was like.

I'd say it is supposed to be as close to accurate as possible without ruining gameplay.

If you wanted to be 100% accurate, then you wouldn't have Rome, you'd have Arians, and other ancient tribes in the Italian penninsula.

Arians in Italy? Last time I checked they were in modern-day Iran. There were followers of the christian bishop Arius by the end of the ancient era (see Arianism), but that is hardly what I would call an ancient tribe. Am I missing something here?

You wouldn't have Iberians, Gauls or Germanic or Gaetians/Dacians for that matter, you'd have one civ that started in Northern Greece/South Eastern Thrace. You would have Illyria, you would have Macedonia, but, as Pvblis says, you'd also have half a dozen other tribes in the region of the Greek Isles.

There were indigenous people for sure, and there was migrating indoeuropeans. Problem is no one can tell for sure if a certain people was there originally or not. You'd end up with a debate on pretty much every suggestion. Perhaps a discussion for "the pre-historic mediterranean mod"?

[...]you wouldn't have Hittites or Kolchis or Scythians. Again, you'd have one people...call them the Steppe people or Huns if you will, and put them just NE of the Caucusses.

There would be nothing accurate about putting these very different peoples together.

I would be in favor of consolidating Iberians, Guals, and Germanic into the Goths.

Why? No historical accuracy AND bad gameplay, I would say.
kwarriorpoet, shooting from the hip are you?

And a last comment to those who don't want to see two Iranian civs...
There was a Medean empire at one time, followed by a Persian empire. Even if they were of the same stock, two so significant powers should definitely have a place in the game IMHO, especially when it also helps gameplay on a large map.

 

[Gladi]

I'd say it is supposed to be as close to accurate as possible without ruining gameplay.

Arians in Italy? Last time I checked they were in modern-day Iran. There were followers of the christian bishop Arius by the end of the ancient era (see Arianism), but that is hardly what I would call an ancient tribe. Am I missing something here?

Bright day
I think he meant Aryans (or Arjas) ; though to be fair several languages use I and Y.

Ah, found something new, or old, to moan about . Hoplites shoeld not be be represented by earliest spearmen. No sirree! They ought to be at least armored spearmen with phalangites if they ever make the cut being pikemen.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I have given up trying to play the Hittites. The Hittites get it from all sides, even worse than Rome! LOL!

I am currently playing a game as the Hittites (in the 1,91v i should add).
The key to success for the Hittites IMO is to quickly produce a couple of settlers to get hold of the most productive land, especially to the west, in order to break Lydian expansion. Then you should concentrate on early warfare. The "Three-man-chariot" UU is available early and is both fast and strong. I did this and in three consecutive quick-conquest-wars with the Phoenicians, the Lydians and the Babylonians I made sure my empire was surrounded by weaker enemies. After that I focused on gaining on their cultural advance. Now I've researched Iron working and started to produce "Iron swordsman" UUs, and with those weak neighbors around me it's like having a lush smörgåsbord (smorgasboard?) before you.


In due time before the Warlord expansion I'm promoted to warlord myself. (My 100th post)

 

[thamis]

Congratz on your 100th!

 

[Ankenaton]

Edit: I should have clicked on Ingvina Freyr's attachments before posting!
I think the first one, the glyph for "Land of the Bow" would make an excellent flag. But in solid, not outline form.
==================================================
Maybe a simple, bold representation of the Nubian pyramid.

Nubian Pyramid

But since the Egyptians called Nubia "The Land of the Bow", I would say the bow is appropriate. Is that one above a Nubian bow?

Nubian Bowman
.

I hear you, good choice.

 

[Ankenaton]

I am currently playing a game as the Hittites (in the 1,91v i should add).
The key to success for the Hittites IMO is to quickly produce a couple of settlers to get hold of the most productive land, especially to the west, in order to break Lydian expansion. Then you should concentrate on early warfare. The "Three-man-chariot" UU is available early and is both fast and strong. I did this and in three consecutive quick-conquest-wars with the Phoenicians, the Lydians and the Babylonians I made sure my empire was surrounded by weaker enemies. After that I focused on gaining on their cultural advance. Now I've researched Iron working and started to produce "Iron swordsman" UUs, and with those weak neighbors around me it's like having a lush smörgåsbord (smorgasboard?) before you.


In due time before the Warlord expansion I'm promoted to warlord myself. (My 100th post)

Glad to see someone playing the Hittites as they were meant to be played. Hit hard; hit fast; and then pick up the pieces. With that kind of attitude we would have a great battle of Kadesh right here in TAM. I always thought the AI played the Hittites too passively.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I've tried to make a good-looking bow for the Kushite flag, but I end up with something too similar to the Iberians. Here's a new suggestion, what do you think?

 

[Ick of the East]

I've tried to make a good-looking bow for the Kushite flag, but I end up with something too similar to the Iberians. Here's a new suggestion, what do you think?
View attachment 131771

I think it's too complex for a flag.
How about this simple glyph?
View attachment Nubia Glyph Alpha.bmp

 

[Jet]

With the Hittites you might want to try an extremely aggressive spearman rush. You want to be capturing cities defended, at worst, by javelineers and unpromoted spearmen. Settle the capital on a plains hill if possible, build warrior, worker (or more warriors to steal a worker, but I'm not sure when workers appear in this mod, and the timing of their appearance may depend on difficulty level), then build only spearmen. The standard map is crowded, so other civs are close by. They are fat and weak, and you are mighty. Settlers? Bah! Not mighty enough. When I tried it, it worked very well. It was a few versions ago, when Council of Elders gave a lot of experience and I think javelineers were weaker. Now you'd want to prioritize Urbanization, if you could get it in time to make a difference. Of course this general strategy works even better with hoplites. Details of when I tried it as the Hittites -

Spoiler :

Standard map, Prince, Epic. Eliminated Lydia, then Kolchea and Phoenicia. I think I built the first worker while waiting for Copper Working; in hindsight I think it would have been better to steal a worker, but on the other hand I'm not sure whether Lydia had any to steal yet. I built settlers, but not aggressively, and not before I finished Lydia.

 

[thamis]

Version 1.93 posted.

Includes new maps, new civilization traits, heroes, the Tartessian civilization, and a few other things.

Follow the link in the 1st post, changelist is also on the TAM website.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I've been playing a game as the Nubians on good ol' 1.92... Playing on Immortal. It's awesome. I like having the huge map -- some real room to expand.

I think you've done a good job slowing down Tech researching. It is 15 AD and techs take me 1-11 turns to research with the average at around 6. That seems about right or at least like what you have in vanilla. I'll let you know how the endgame goes.

I like the way financial works now. Once your cottages reach a certain size it kicks in, rather than being immediate or very quick (depending on whether the cottage is on a river). This works well with the slower cottage development.

I still am having very few wars. I've noticed that the AI is a bit more likely to attack (although in my game I've only had one real war, once I dispatched Egypt), but still the only Civ eliminated was the Medes by the barbarians.

Some strangenesses on the Huge Mediteranian map: To the east of the Nubian capital there is an area with floodplains on plains that is not on a river, rather one space east of the Nile. This makes for a PIMP city location: you can set one right in the mountains so it has 3 gold mines in its borders and 3 floodplains...

The Egyptian capital, as it now stands, has a total of 4 production available to it (I suppose more if you build a workshop on its one plain)! You talked about moving the capital, but either way I think it would be good to add in some hills or plains or something to make this more useable. Perhaps some stone -- afterall, the Pyramids were built around here. (By the way, I think you should move the capital to the lower Nile -- it is just too close to the Nubians -- makes it very easy for them to conquer the Egyptians early and expand quickly.)

I look forward to trying out 1.93. You guys sure do keep them coming!

-- Hypnotoad