The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

I encountered the same error. Again with the peltast. I narrowed the problem down to it happens whenever a peltast moves pretty much. I was able to fix it by editing xml/art/unitart.xml or whatever that defines what art to use for each unit. I made the peltast use the same model as the javeliner, which involved changing 2 lines. So I'm guessing the model is bugged.

For the record I have a geforce 2 card, and in other mods I've needed the "white flag patch" due to alpha channel issues.

Hope you guys can fix this, I haven't had a complete game yet (though I may get through one now with my fix).

Thanks,
Cham

 

I am posting my tweeked version of the normal map, v.1.93.

I'd appreciate your review of the modified version. I have tested it through 3 different games now. Each time, Greece emerged as a number 2 or 3 power, and Egypt had an explosive start that tapers off towards the later game, and eventually, there is a huge AI on AI war vs. Egypt. The hittites are strong, ballanced by the Lydions and Kolchis. The Babylonians are very strong for most of the game.

When I play the Romans, I still emerge as the number one power, am constantly at war with the Gauls and Germanic Tribes. I even manage to get Viriato on my side occassionally. The Tartessians do balance Dido, and they also reduce some of the Barb raids in Africa.

Decebal is a major military power, but is technologically backward, which I think feels correct. It is kind of odd that the Gatians are my closest allie...

Anyway, there are many changes here, and I feel that you really need to look at the original map and compare to my tweeked map to understand them all. (Moved Greek start, Moved Gaulish and Germanic starts slightly, adjusted a resource for Gaul, Adjusted Viriato and Argantonio's start area, adjusted the Nile for room for 3 good cities, put a plains hill under Egypt and Rome settlers, moved Lydions to the coast, and gave the Hittites a spot of grain.)

These changes have made the game slightly more accurate in terms of AI managed expansion routes and power development IMHO. Not to mention that the game is more fun I appreciate your comments and criticisms

Here is the link: View attachment Tweaked TAM Normal size kwarriorpoet 071206.zip

 

Yes!

I almost feel like I'm acting it out! You guys have really ballanced so much of this mod so well. I should add that I was playing on my tweeked map that I just posted here. I'd like your team to look it over.

As to history playing out in the game. I am in my 3rd war with the Germanic tribes, and my Second with Gaul. Both times that I have entered a war against Gaul, it has been after I am at war with someone else!

I am pushing now to erradicate the Germanic tribes. I may have to just cripple the Gauls some more, but if I eliminate him from the game, then Viriato may become too powerful, lol.

Oh...my decisions are weighty as Rome...I still dream of taking out Greece and crippling the Gatians...

 

The best way to encourage AI on AI is to have a seriously powerful military so the AI doesn't even consider attacking you (unless they are already furious or Annoyed with you, then it seems to be a certainty.)

If you are militarily a 3rd rate power, then you are doomed.

The next best method is to surround yourself with crippled enemies. Hopefully, their neighbors will smell blood in the water.

AI on AI wars only occur in the SE of the map. I guess this is because I, as Rome, am too far from them?

 

Though I've nothing to decide here I will definitely test this. I'm glad you put so much efforts in the normal map as it is my favorite. I simply lack this huge amount of spare time (and playing motivation) necessary for a huge map

 

But I am (expecting something quite amazing). IMO, the work on the AI-personalities will add a lot of atmosphere to the game.

 

That's cool, kwarriorpoet! I really like the results your changes seem to have had on how the game turns out. Perhaps Thamis should take a closer look at this. I think the changes made by Seven05 and Shqype are going to make a lot of difference as well.

 

You mean when you play with the Romans? Well, unless your leader's name is Trajan and the year isn't 106, you can be best friends with him...

 

The biggest issues that was addressed was the AI - AI diplomatic bonuses/penalties that didn't apply to the player. So even when you did get some fighting it was "uninspired" and didn't have a significant impact on the game. At the same time I want to make sure the game doesn't become an entirely accurate representation of History otherwise Rome will always win

On top of that we've done some work on the individual AI personalities to encourage them to do things more historically appropriate. This includes a number of changes to trade options making some civs easier to trade with than others. Other good examples are how trustworthy or demanding a leader is. All of this adds a lot of diplomatic variety to the game, so it is no longer a matter of treating them all essentially the same to get the same benefits. And, in an attempt to make diplomacy more important many of the "freebie" bonuses are either gone or significantly reduced. So making friends requires a little more effort than simply not attacking them and in some cases it may take some work just to maintain peace. The goal with the diplomacy effects is to force you to chose your friends, you won't have enough resources to please everybody and everyone you trade with is likely to have an enemy that will hate you for it.

The most obvious effect of the changes is an increased number of AI vs AI wars with absolutely no influence from the player. In fact, in all of my test games there have been wars that I didn't even know about until I resigned and watched the history playback. As a result it doesn't matter if you're a powerhouse and you don't need good/bad relations between the human players and AI players to trigger a war. In fact, in many of my tests I have simply built up a strong defense and watched the AI fight amongst themselves just to see how things would work out and to make sure it wasn't the same reaction in every game. But, even if I'm not the most powerful civ or even if I play in my normal aggressive ways the AI still has their own conflicts. As an added bonus the "Aggressive AI" game option has been tweaked so it doesn't just make the AI more aggressive towards human players.

And, for some good news, none of this breaks the difficulty levels. So whatever level you plat at, it will still be about the same as it is now, just a little more violent. A possible exception is diplomacy which is a bit harder now on all levels.

Here's a quick test game example:

I had one game where the Hittites went absolutely nuts, they declared war on the Phonecians and just sacked a good chunk of their cities. While they were doing that the Kolchis decalred war on them and the Hittites ended up sacking a bunch of their cities until the Baylonians joined in against the Hittities and started conquering several of their cities. Once the Hittities made peace the Babylonians declared war on the Phonecians which brought the Egyptians in against Babylonia. By the time I (Romans) made it over there the Hittitie empire was split in half with all of their original cities belonging to the Babylonians, the Kolchis were stuck in the NE corner of the map fighting with the Scythians and the Phonecians were landlocked with a bunch of poor quality desert cities.

And that was just the east side, there was everything from total wars to border skirmishes all over the place. The best part has been the fact that no two games were the same so its still fun to replay it.

Now, I'm going to grab your tweaked map and try it out with the new AI changes to see how it works out. If it looks good I'll send a nice report to Thamis and drop a post here for you. Without your tweaked map I end up with really close scores throughout the early game, typically the range is maybe 100 points between the leading AI and the last place AI. Some of them are "wildcards" and you never know for sure how they are going to do. Others tend to get into the top 5 and stay there in most games but even that isn't guaranteed.

 

Ok, some notes for the Myceneans.

The start position is actually worse for the early game, if you do a "worker first" strategy like I normally do what used to take 15 turns now takes 18. Likewise a two-chop settler (25 turns normal build time) was up to 31 turns I think, an extra 6 turns after two chops making it nearly impossibel to beat the Illyrians to the ideal plots north of Mycenae. It also kills one of three precious forests that you can no longer chop and the new position appears to eliminate the growth of additional forests around Mycenae. The move also makes what is normally my second city (and a very good one at that) loose a lot of tiles to overlap either with Mycanae or Skodra to the north. Shifting subsequent cities to avoid overlap results in several bonuses no longer being within the workable radious unless you go for a lot of overlap. Now, I know not all overlap is bad and have a few overlaps here and there isn't bad but the diagnal shift has made what could be very good second and third city plots into mediocre locations at best. In the end, my most successful test start was achieved by moving the settler back on top of the clay.

Perhaps a better option for them would be to leave the start where it was, move the clay one tile south and possibly change the grassland start tile to a grassland hill. I know having a workable clay quarry is better than having it under a city however that added production was very helpful early in the game. Even a single extra land tile west of the start position would make a city west of Mycenae more viable.

The AI looked like they were doing OK but I didn't play long enough in any of my test starts to see any substantial differences.

Edit: Also, remember that the AI will have a minimum of 10 hammers in their initial city so any change of one hammer/food will make very little difference for them but can be significant for a human player.

 

Why don't we remove one of the Greek starting technologies and instead give them the one that allows them to utilize clay? That way they take immediate benefit from the resource...

 

Isn't that Masonry? Might be a bit advanced for a starting tech. The AI changes alone are pretty substantial if we add in a lot of other changes at the same time it'll be hard to identify which ones work well and which don't.

 

I hear you; here's hoping that you two are successful.

 

Glad to hear your gameplay has become more enjoyable. This version of Civ does a decent job of modeling the pitfalls of overexpansion; especially early on.

 

early worker start is rough, but try the two work boat strategy...which is what the AI does in this position

 

My computer was top of the line about 18 months ago...needless to say, the huge map is too slow, hence why I only play on the normal map. I am totally in your camp on this

 

It doesn't help with the cascading city locations and it makes the critical first settler take even longer to get out

The AI does fine with the start because they get those 10 free hammers, so two workboats for them is nothing.

 

Here it is, the Sphinx wonder! I think it looks nice!

http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sphinxshot0bt.jpg

 

I like the Sphinx part of it. But it was never located inside one of those temples.
Couldn't it be separated?

And for the icon, maybe you could grab an image of the one in Las Vegas, which is how it looked before thousands of years of sandblasting took its toll.

 

Civilization is not meant to be played with a GeForce 2 card. At least get a GeForce 4. They're really cheap now on Amazon or eBay.