The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[onedreamer]

Well, I think the Civ series always had it wrong... how can you develop an alphabet if you can't write it? You first have to develop writing, to associate ideas with symbols, and afterward you can start to develop a structure, the alphabet.

Nah, sorry man but you're completely wrong IMO. Think it like this: when you were a kid, what were you tought first ? Alphabet or writing your name ? You can't write anything without a set alphabet... how can you even think to write something if you have no letters to compose a word ? The best you can do is hyeroglyphs, which is NOT writing. So unless with writing we instead intend hyeroglyphs, there's something wrong here to me.[/quote]

@Breunor

I'm with yout and I believe Assyria had a much bigger impact than Babylon in the long run, simply because they were effective and organized, developping the framework of many advances(irrigations, iron working, warfare tactics, etc.)

And beside, while babylonians have been my favorite civ since Civ1, I still like Assyria more. They are cooler =)

Disagree again. Certainly Assyria had a greater military impact, but the first code of laws were babylonian (Hammurabi). The most beautiful city in Mesopotamia was undoubtly Babylon. I'd say that culturally I must pick Babylon over Assyria. Remember this game, especially with its 4th release, is not only about military and building but also about culture and religion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The best you can do is hyeroglyphs, which is NOT writing.

This is just wrong. Hieroglyphs most certainly are writing.

Writing is the representation of language with graphical symbols. Hieroglyphs fulfill that definition just as well as does alphabetic writing.

 

[onedreamer]

Oh, I missed the Etruscans. Lars Porsenna maybe, Tarquin the Great?

You probably refer to Tarquin the Proud or the Arrogant however you want to translate in English Tarquinius Superbus. There wasn't a Tarquin the Great that I know of in the course of History. Anyways, Tarquinius S. was king of Rome, so I wouldn't use him as hero or leader of Etruria.

 

[onedreamer]

This is just wrong. Hieroglyphs most certainly are writing.

Writing is the representation of language with graphical symbols. Hieroglyphs fulfill that definition just as well as does alphabetic writing.

I disagree because alphabet letters are different from hieroglyphs. A hieroglyph can be a word, a concept a whole phrase maybe. At this stage, whe could almost say that painting is like writing ? I disagree.

 

[Breunor]

You probably refer to Tarquin the Proud or the Arrogant however you want to translate in English Tarquinius Superbus. There wasn't a Tarquin the Great that I know of in the course of History. Anyways, Tarquinius S. was king of Rome, so I wouldn't use him as hero or leader of Etruria.

When I said Tarquin the great I meant Tarquinus Superbus, but I really wanted a good king, Tarquinus Priscus.

Breunor

 

[Breunor]

Disagree again. Certainly Assyria had a greater military impact, but the first code of laws were babylonian (Hammurabi). The most beautiful city in Mesopotamia was undoubtly Babylon. I'd say that culturally I must pick Babylon over Assyria. Remember this game, especially with its 4th release, is not only about military and building but also about culture and religion.[/QUOTE]


Oneday,

Ok, here we are going to have a friendly disagreement. Hammurabi almost certainly didn't write the code. Anyway, I'm going with Assyria, the first real empire.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[The Last Conformist]

I disagree because alphabet letters are different from hieroglyphs. A hieroglyph can be a word, a concept a whole phrase maybe. At this stage, whe could almost say that painting is like writing ? I disagree.

A hieroglyph indicates a word, a sequence of consonants, or a single consonant. They don't indicate "concepts", and only indicate phrases when the phrase happens to be a single word.

Incidentally, if you deny that hieroglyphs are writing, you'd, for consistency's sake, also have to deny that cuneiform, Mayan glyphs, and Chinese characters are writing. They all work quite similarly.


Paintings are a red herring. They don't encode language - hieroglyphic inscriptions do.

 

[thamis]

@Breunor: Thanks for the Hero recommendations. I've updated the first post. Yes, the leader of the Medes is Deiokes.

 

[thamis]

@Writing/Alphabet debate:
The Alphabet, by definition, is a phonetic way of writing. Each letter (or certain letter combinations) correspond to a spoken sound.

You can write without an alphabet, as the Chinese still do, for example. Each Symbol represents a word, and symbols can be combined to make new meanings.

Just a few examples:
Alphabets: Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic
Symbols: Chinese, Hieroglyphs

Cuneiform is somewhere in between, as each letter represents a syllable.

Thus, historically, writing was developed before the alphabet.

@Babylonia/Assyria:
Yes, Assyria was the bigger and more important empire. Babylon, though, had a stronger impact on human history and is still remembered -- everywhere. Babylon was not only one of the most important cities thoughout history, it has also gained symbolic status as a signification of all civilization (as in reggae songs).

For the purpose of TAM, I would rather go with civilizations that are known than with civilizations that were good militarily, but didn't leave a big mark on human history.

@Kolchis/Urartu:
I would love to include Urartu, as it was more important than the semi-mythical Kolchis that I refer to (I'm thinking Golden Fleece here). Two problems with Urartu:
1) It's very hard to find any distinctly Urartian cities.
2) The land where they lived is completely mountaneous, which in CIV just doesn't work

 

[thamis]

Just on a funny note: In 500 BC, Kolchis paid 25 boys and 25 girls as tribute to Persia. I wonder... were Kolchean people so pretty?

(As a comparison, Egypt paid 700 talents of silver, bulls, and cloth.)

 

[Nemovadit]

Nice work on the tech tree!

Just a few random thought about the tech tree:

* It seems the Romans used a modified gallic saddle (develloped about a century before the Gallic wars) that they progressively enhanced to something that could support the rider, thus makin a cavalry charge with a lance effective. Will try to find some more on that.
* The chainmail is another Gallic invention, though only the Romans used them in large numbers.
* The Romans had a heavy use of auxilliaries, and I hardly see anything that would help introduce that, or Alexander's various allies. Maybe a mercenaries tech could be added.
* Logistics should be in, think of Marius' reformation of the Roman army. That was, along with discipline and good equipment, one of the reasons for the Roman superiority.
* Shouldn't the recurve bow be restricted to historically accurate civs, as the mounted archer isn't exactly a common sight around Mediterranea?
* Shouldn't heavy cavalry be there somewhere (cataphracti etc.)
* Sanitation appeared before Rome. If I recall correctly there are sewers remnants in Alexandria that clearly predate the Empire.

I think a nice addition to the tech tree would be to add more militarily relevant techs. After all, the Ancient Times were quite eventful as warfare go, and techniques and units were very differents.

 

[onedreamer]

there is a substantial difference between hieroglyphs and chinese symbols, however if you want to consider them the same then I must concur that hieroglyphs = writing.

@nemovadit
just a note, the gallic saddle, which I would call celtic saddle, came itself from the Schytians.

 

[onedreamer]

When I said Tarquin the great I meant Tarquinus Superbus, but I really wanted a good king, Tarquinus Priscus.

Breunor

hmm, I really can't understand what you mean here. Can you be more precise ?

 

[thamis]

* It seems the Romans used a modified gallic saddle (develloped about a century before the Gallic wars) that they progressively enhanced to something that could support the rider, thus makin a cavalry charge with a lance effective. Will try to find some more on that.
* The chainmail is another Gallic invention, though only the Romans used them in large numbers.
* The Romans had a heavy use of auxilliaries, and I hardly see anything that would help introduce that, or Alexander's various allies. Maybe a mercenaries tech could be added.
* Logistics should be in, think of Marius' reformation of the Roman army. That was, along with discipline and good equipment, one of the reasons for the Roman superiority.
* Shouldn't the recurve bow be restricted to historically accurate civs, as the mounted archer isn't exactly a common sight around Mediterranea?
* Shouldn't heavy cavalry be there somewhere (cataphracti etc.)
* Sanitation appeared before Rome. If I recall correctly there are sewers remnants in Alexandria that clearly predate the Empire.

Cavalry Charge: Well cavalry was never truly important in the Roman empire. Only in Eastern Rome with Cataphracti.

Auxiliaries: I think we should allow for Mercerinaries with "The Market". I'll see if it is possible to have a unit that is cheap to build but costs more in upkeep.

Logistics: How would that affect gameplay?

Recurve bow: Can't restrict that. The spirit of CIV is to make it possible for all civs to do all things in order to have an "alternative history".

Heavy Cavalry: = Chivalry

Sanitation: Well, it was the Romans who did it quite professionally.

 

[thamis]

there is a substantial difference between hieroglyphs and chinese symbols, however if you want to consider them the same then I must concur that hieroglyphs = writing.

I'm not considering them to be the same, but when thinking about writing categories, they are in a similar category. Chinese symbols grew out of hieroglyphics (Chinese hieroglyphics, not the Egyptian ones of course), and became more abstracted over the millennia. But they are still a symbol language.

 

[Karhgath]

Logistics could gives powerful new promotions? Any ideas?

 

[Breunor]

@Writing/Alphabet debate:
@Kolchis/Urartu:
I would love to include Urartu, as it was more important than the semi-mythical Kolchis that I refer to (I'm thinking Golden Fleece here). Two problems with Urartu:
1) It's very hard to find any distinctly Urartian cities.
2) The land where they lived is completely mountaneous, which in CIV just doesn't work

Ok, I understand Armenia/Urartu is tough from a game standpoint. Unfortunately, I know zip about ancient Kolchis. They appear in Greek mythology, since the very ancient Greeks (from the period of the mythmakers) thought that the Black Sea was the end of the world -- Jason's trip was to the end of the earth as they understood it.

From an historical standpoint, the area we think of as Kolchis is pretty obscure. There are mixed languages and cultures, but they seem to be the forerunners of the Georgians there today. I don't really know of any history before their conquest by Persia.

Sorry I can't help here.

Breunor

 

[Breunor]

hmm, I really can't understand what you mean here. Can you be more precise ?

Ok, I think Tarquinus Priscus is a better great leader than his son, Tarquinus Superbus. Priscus was the fifth king, and is usually considered by the quasi-myth/history as a really great king. According to legend, Ancus Marcius (fourth king) adopted him because he was so noble, and turned out to be a great king.

Tarquinus Superbus was a terrible king (again, this is legend/history), who murdered the sixth king, Servius Tullius. He was deposed after the famous Rape of Lucretia incident, by Lucretia's kinsman Lucius Junius Brutus, theoretically in 509 BC and founded the Republic. (In reality, it looks like the Etruscans were still the big boys until the 470's).

So, I would think Tarquinus Priscus is a better choice for a hero. On issue would be whether he is really a ROMAN hero, not an Etruscan one. Indeed, he is creditied for defeating Etruscans in battle for Rome.

Of course, we must remember that the Etruscans were a series of city states and never anything close to resembling a nation. So, a POTENTIAL for history is that the Ancus Marcius/Tarquinus Priscus/Servius Tullius/Tarquinus Superbus period represents a mixing and a back and forth between Latin leaders and direct Etruscan ones. In the Romans had their own leaders, they were probably approved by Etruscan overlords.

To make matters worse, both Numa and Ancus Martius (who seeems to be a Numa clone) were actually Sabines, showing that control in that period was tenuous and cultures amalgomated.

If an Etruscan Roman leader defeats other Etruscans, it probably isn't any different than the endless internal greek fights, where one Greek city defeats another.

So, I don't see how we can use Tarquinus Superbus as a hero, but Tarquinus Priscus is a good choice.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[wolfman1234]

Bah, i would go for the true heros, the footmans, Tito Pullo and Lucio Vorenus.

 

[Nemovadit]

Cavalry Charge: Well cavalry was never truly important in the Roman empire. Only in Eastern Rome with Cataphracti.

Logistics: How would that affect gameplay?

Heavy Cavalry: = Chivalry

Cavalry: My thought here was more to introduce a cavalry unit that wouldn't be a horse archer or a cataphract. I was thinking of Hadrian's introduction of armoured riders, Gallic nobles on horse, Philipp and Alexander's companions etc.

Logistics: either allow units to heal quicker (with logistics you have more time to get a real camp, thus more time for the wounded etc.), or allow a new, stronger infantry unit. What I had in mind here was that the legion's effectiveness had been greatly enhanced with the reforms of

Heavy cavalry/chivalry: this choice of word would introduce a western, middle-age centric bias. Not to mention that it's clearly out of your timeframe: after all, the Frank king's riders were still called caballari in the chronicles of the 11th century! English only loaned the word from French during the 12th or 13th century. Weren't the Sassanids using heavy cavalry too, apart from East Rome?