The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

Shqype said:
Wow! :eek:

Then you're sure in for a surprise!
I'm pleased to say version 1.7 is coded, and once Thamis gets a chance to play-test it, he will provide it for download. So hopefully tomorrow TAM v1.7 will be available for your constructive criticism :)

mgdpublic - Once the new version gets released be sure to delete your former TAM folder, as well as the map that it came with, and just install the new version. This will ensure that you are playing with the most up-to-date version.

Sounds promising!!
 
Shqype said:
Why do you disregard and fail to acknowledge the other peoples that went along with him on his conquest and made up a significant portion of his army? (Namely, the Illyrians). From what information do you make the statement "they all spoke Greek?" What does such a thing prove? Nothing really, except for reinforcing the aforementioned point that Alexander spread Greek culture.

Ok. That's true. They all probably didn't speak Greek well. Let me put it another way. Alexander spoke Greek. His generals spoke greek. His military commands were in Greek. His proclamations were in Greek. His inscriptions were in Greek.

As for the sounding of his troops:
"There were 12,600 Greeks, about 7000 tribal levies from the Balkans, nearly 2000 light-armed and cavalry scouts from Thrace and Paeonia and the remaining 15-16,000 were Macedonians and Thessalians." Walbank. The Hellenistic Age. pg31

He also met up with 10,000 soldiers already in Asia, sent by Phillip as an advance force.

Of his striking force, his Macedonian phalanx was 9000 strong, with 3000 heavily armoured hypaspists (the core/hammer of his infantry).

The companion cavalry were composed of the noble houses of Macedon. Hence, his companions. It is important to keep in mind that he sent many of the Greeks home once in Asia, and that it was his Macedonian force that won his battles for him. (quotes available upon request).

It is interesting that he didn't have any money for his expedition. He actually owed many talents when he crossed into Asia. Good thing for him we was so damn successful.
 
just a few comments on recent debates:

1- Iberians should be regulated by placing barbarian cities throughout Iberia with powerful defenses. OR we could give Carthage 2 starting positions: Carthago and Carthago Nova, but add a Numidian civilization to limit carthaginian expansion in western north Africa.
2- Germanic tribes should be limited by impassable forsts, in particular they should not be able to settle north Italy. Note that Germanic Tribes are always a good civ in this mod because of their favourable position which is easily defendable. But I've seen more than one occasions in which they pissed off too many civs and they were annihilated.
3- Regarding starting techs, it would be nice if they would be assigned so that some mesopotamian civ can easily found the mesopotamian religion, rather than the iberians or gauls or germans.
4- Regarding religions they should all have decreased spread rates by at least 25%, and/or none of them should be able to build missionaries except Christianism. If possible, as consequence of this, reglions should spread even in cities which already have one or more religions, since this was very common in the ancient age.
5- I guess most religion improvements will be in the next version though :P
6- The Greek civilization never was influential militarily. At least not offensively. The great epic of a single general of macedonian origins does not make of the greek civilization/culture a poweful empire in the history. Period.
7- The greek civilization had great cultural influence in the ancient ages. Perhaps Myceneans should be able to build a fast and quite cultural building to contrast the fact that they do get a crappy starting position and/or an early ship.
 
zxe said:
As for the sounding of his troops:
"There were 12,600 Greeks, about 7000 tribal levies from the Balkans, nearly 2000 light-armed and cavalry scouts from Thrace and Paeonia and the remaining 15-16,000 were Macedonians and Thessalians." Walbank. The Hellenistic Age. pg31

When it comes to numbers and stuff like this, I only believe to historical books that have been written by historians of that age, especially when we speak about balkans and greece, since there is too much bias regarding ancient/classical age or even later history of those areas.

zxe said:
It is interesting that he didn't have any money for his expedition. He actually owed many talents when he crossed into Asia. Good thing for him we was so damn successful.

I don't remember Alexander being "so damn successful" in Asia. I was taught the contrary ?
 
onedreamer said:
I don't remember Alexander being "so damn successful" in Asia. I was taught the contrary ?
He was incredibly successful in Asia. What else would you call it? He entered Asia as soon as he crossed into modern-day Turkey. All of his victories against the Persians were in Asia.
 
Well, Persia is in the Middle East and I wouldn't list mesopotamian cultures as asian cultures.
If you mention Asia I would think of India, where as far as I remember, Alexander wasn't so damn successful.
 
Ok. That's true. They all probably didn't speak Greek well. Let me put it another way. Alexander spoke Greek. His generals spoke greek. His military commands were in Greek. His proclamations were in Greek. His inscriptions were in Greek.
How can you tell some of these to be truth? However, I will concede that at least some of these are true, by logic. Alexander spread Greek culture: isn't language a defining element of culture?

When it comes to numbers and stuff like this, I only believe to historical books that have been written by historians of that age, especially when we speak about balkans and greece, since there is too much bias regarding ancient/classical age or even later history of those areas.
That's true. Unfortunately everyone has their own agenda. Regarding numbers, Illyrian tribes joined Alexander on his conquest, after which some such soldiers settled in the land they conquered. To this day in the mountainous border of Afghanistan there are "white" people that speak an extremely archaic dialect of Albanian. This, obviously, shows that Illyrians accompanied him on his conquest, and made up a portion of his army.

Again to comment on speaking Greek, the ancient Macedonians adopted Greek culture, which, at that time, was the dominant culture in the Mediterranean. Thanks to the Greeks' bias, to speak Greek and to indulge in Greek culture was to be "civilized." They had a great impact on ancient peoples and spread their culture throughout the ancient world; this led to Macedonians that spoke Greek, Hellenized Illyrians, etc. etc.

1- Iberians should be regulated by placing barbarian cities throughout Iberia with powerful defenses. OR we could give Carthage 2 starting positions: Carthago and Carthago Nova, but add a Numidian civilization to limit carthaginian expansion in western north Africa.
Not a bad idea, but it is up to Thamis. I wouldn't mind placing a few barbarian cities throughout the ancient world.
2- Germanic tribes should be limited by impassable forsts, in particular they should not be able to settle north Italy. Note that Germanic Tribes are always a good civ in this mod because of their favourable position which is easily defendable. But I've seen more than one occasions in which they pissed off too many civs and they were annihilated.
Currently the new forest type (Dense Forest) is in their domain, but while it is passable, it cannot be 'chopped' until Iron Working is discovered.
3- Regarding starting techs, it would be nice if they would be assigned so that some mesopotamian civ can easily found the mesopotamian religion, rather than the iberians or gauls or germans.
That's a good idea. Starting technologies have already been assigned by Thamis. Expect to see them.
4- Regarding religions they should all have decreased spread rates by at least 25%, and/or none of them should be able to build missionaries except Christianism. If possible, as consequence of this, reglions should spread even in cities which already have one or more religions, since this was very common in the ancient age.
The basic religious spread rate has already been reduced.
5- I guess most religion improvements will be in the next version though :P
You'll see some cool wonders too ;)
6- The Greek civilization never was influential militarily. At least not offensively. The great epic of a single general of macedonian origins does not make of the greek civilization/culture a poweful empire in the history. Period.
Right on the dot.
7- The greek civilization had great cultural influence in the ancient ages. Perhaps Myceneans should be able to build a fast and quite cultural building to contrast the fact that they do get a crappy starting position and/or an early ship.
Another good idea. Although the Greeks were not mighty, they did have a culture that greatly influenced the ancient Mediterranean. Perhaps giving them a free culture producing building in their capital city from game start will do the trick?
 
onedreamer said:
1- Iberians should be regulated by placing barbarian cities throughout Iberia with powerful defenses. OR we could give Carthage 2 starting positions: Carthago and Carthago Nova, but add a Numidian civilization to limit carthaginian expansion in western north Africa.
Great idea. I like the sounds of adding a few more barb cities. Just so long as they don't end up being freebies to a more powerful carthage.

onedreamer said:
3- Regarding starting techs, it would be nice if they would be assigned so that some mesopotamian civ can easily found the mesopotamian religion, rather than the iberians or gauls or germans.
YES! That was my concern. But I'm told it will be fixed for 1.7. As to the other religious ideas, I'm not so sure. No missionaries at all? That limits the strategic value of the religions (You wouldn't be able to convert a civ so that it will go to war with you.)
onedreamer said:
6- The Greek civilization never was influential militarily. At least not offensively. The great epic of a single general of macedonian origins does not make of the greek civilization/culture a poweful empire in the history. Period.
Ummm. Yes, it was Alexander who conquered Asia. But MANY generations of his successors remained in control of the key centres (ie: the Seleucids in Babylon, the Ptolemys in Egypt, and the Antigonids in Asia Minor.) Hardly a single generation. The Ptolemys lasted in Egypt right up to Octavian's(Augustus) defeat of Marc Antony around 30BC. (That’s about 300 years.)
onedreamer said:
When it comes to numbers and stuff like this, I only believe to historical books that have been written by historians of that age, especially when we speak about balkans and greece, since there is too much bias regarding ancient/classical age or even later history of those areas.
I agree. But few of these historian's texts survive, and Arrian does not list the make-up of all of the troops heading across the Hellespont (and I don't have any other prime-sources around me right now, so I threw out Walbank's numbers. For those numbers, Walbank quotes Diodorus xviii, 17, 3, and 5, who is a primary source, although not contemporary with Alexander (around 90-30 BC).
onedreamer said:
I don't remember Alexander being "so damn successful" in Asia. I was taught the contrary ?
I think Mesik discussed the problem you are having, but Gunner is right. Essentially, the world as we see it now is named much differently than the world as described by history. To the ancient Western world, Asia began at the Hellespont. Macedonia's generals initially divided Alexander's empire into two parts: Europe and Asia (Europe being Greece, Thrace, etc). Asia was everything in the east. Also keep in mind that modern Turkey was once called "Asia Minor". But, you are right. Alexander, though he continued to have military success in Asia (he conquered the VERY powerful king Porus), was threatened with the mutiny of his men. For this reason, he stopped, sending Nearchus south in 800 to 100 boats to map out the Indian ocean back to the Persian Gulf, while he disastrously marched his men through Gedrosia (just to prove it could be done). So, I can see why you might think he failed in Asia.

edit: Wow. Double post. You beat me to it Shqype. :)
 
zxe said:
Ummm. Yes, it was Alexander who conquered Asia. But MANY generations of his successors remained in control of the key centres (ie: the Seleucids in Babylon, the Ptolemys in Egypt, and the Antigonids in Asia Minor.) Hardly a single generation. The Ptolemys lasted in Egypt right up to Octavian's(Augustus) defeat of Marc Antony around 30BC. (That’s about 300 years.)

this only proves the point that Greece was culturally influent, since neither Ptolemaic Egypt or Seleucid Persia were military monsters, right ?
 
zxe said:
I think Mesik discussed the problem you are having, but Gunner is right. Essentially, the world as we see it now is named much differently than the world as described by history. To the ancient Western world, Asia began at the Hellespont. Macedonia's generals initially divided Alexander's empire into two parts: Europe and Asia (Europe being Greece, Thrace, etc). Asia was everything in the east. Also keep in mind that modern Turkey was once called "Asia Minor". But, you are right. Alexander, though he continued to have military success in Asia (he conquered the VERY powerful king Porus), was threatened with the mutiny of his men. For this reason, he stopped, sending Nearchus south in 800 to 100 boats to map out the Indian ocean back to the Persian Gulf, while he disastrously marched his men through Gedrosia (just to prove it could be done). So, I can see why you might think he failed in Asia.

Turkey is called Asia Minor to the present day. And what was once the Persian empire territory is geographically in Asia since there isn't a Middle Eastern continent, BUT since Asia is a huge continent of which Middle East is a small part, stating Alexander was very successful in Asia is wrong. I could still agree if he didn't fail in India, but he failed there. So in this case it is necessary to distinguish Middle East from the rest of Asia.
Also there are more reasons why he failed in Asia, of which the mutiny threatens were only a consequence: the main being his mental insanity or instability at that point and total careless of his army, hostile and unknown nature and indigenous population who fought with different tactics and rided Elephants.
 
onedreamer said:
this only proves the point that Greece was culturally influent, since neither Ptolemaic Egypt or Seleucid Persia were military monsters, right ?

Well. Explain to me how a 1% minority controls a 99% majority? Just superior culture? So THAT's how Bush does it! ;)

These guys (Ptolemy, Selueceus, Antigonus the One-Eyed, Antingonus Gonatus) and their descendants were fighting aggressive wars right up to Macedonia's demise at the hands of the Romans.

And I am aware that Asia Minor is still a region. I was just letting you know, in case you didn't. And he didn't fail in India. He beat both of the major powers he fought against. And local fighters did very little to stop him. He continued subdueing all the way back to Persia. But yes, he was a bit insane to trek through Gedrosia, where he did lose many soldiers because of the conditions. But he was NEVER defeated in the field. Keep that in mind.
 
Explain to me how a 1% minority controls a 99% majority?
Wasn't this the case in South Africa? ...
 
Game play comments first:

The idea to put in extra barbarian cities may have the opposite effect intended. I find that in the early game it takes some time to build settlers for expansion when I could be building a more powerful militarty or some of the cool buildings that my research is unlocking. I view barbarian cities as a blessing because I get to have a new city without having to build a settler. With proper planning I can take a barbarian city with no casualties (or at the most one unit lost). Now I have a more powerful military and more cities. There is no trade off.

The best way to limit a civ is to reduce the amount of resources available. Lower food resources limits growth and lower industrial resources limits production and the availability of advanced units and buildings.

The question that I have is whether it is necessary to handicap any of the civs. This is a game afterall, and not a simulation of history. The old saying "Rome wasn't built in a day," seems appropriate here. It took several very successful rulers to build the Roman Empire and the success was not a foregone conclusion. Allowing players to play any of the civs with a fighting chance seems more condusive to a fun gaming experience.
 
I understand what you're saying Mesix, and in some ways I agree with you. While we did make some civs "easier" to play than others, there isn't a huge gap in the difficulty. All civs that created empires are given 2 starting technologies, the "barbarian" civs (or factions with empires that didn't expand into territory not their own) get 1 starting technology, and Rome gets 3 starting technologies.
 
Ongoning historical debate second:

All of the arguments that I am seeing favoring Alexander as a great leader rely heavily on his military success. I never said that he wasn't an outstanding General. In fact, I would rank him among the greatest military minds of all time. The point that I was trying to make is that he never stayed in any of the lands that he conquered long enough to be bothered by the trival tasks of civil leadership. He was a king in front of an army, but not an administratior of a kingdom by any means.

As far as the source material, I do not feel it necessary to go to the library to dig up quotes for a historical debate in a forum dedicated to a game. The only books in my modest personal library about the subject are both written by Peter Green which make them both modern and from a single author. I do think that Green does a great job of incorporating primary source material in his books though. While taking college classes a lot of the information was presented through access to scholarly databases many of which had reproductions of both primary and secondary sources.

A side note of interest:

Did you know that almost all of what we know of ancient Gaul comes from a single primary source? The Celtic civilization had no written records and most of their culture was passed down through oral tradition. Most of what we know about them comes from observations written by Julias Caesar as he conquered their lands. How one sided is that?
 
I have played some games now and the more I think of it, my dreamscenario would concentrate more on the mediterranean. Make a bigger map of the mediterranean area and cut off germany and so on. Make many different seaunits galleys and seawessels, otherwise I think its a good scenario, better than EE3 and Fall from heaven. Can´t wait for that 1.7 version, please hurry.:crazyeye:
 
Back
Top Bottom