The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[Shqype]

Yea, I realized that when I re-looked at the code. Thanks for the offer Kael, but I'll just decompile and do it myself Now I have an excuse to,

 

[onedreamer]

10% makes a lot of difference. To use a naval example, after I removed the 10% defense bonus two biremes each with a combat I promotion had a 50% chance of winning the battle. Before I removed thar bonus, the attacking ship had only 1/3 chance of winning!

yeah but I kind of have the suspect that naval battles are handled differently from land ones, since I've never won a naval battle with inferior strength. 10% does not make a lot of difference, if it would be so then the Aggressive trait, which gives the same bonus, would be overpowered or decisive too. But I doubt it is.

But if they don't have the bonus in the early game, they might not survive to the middle game where they are supposed to be strong. Besides, if it's the goal to follow history closely, a lot of civs shouldn't be in the game in 5500 BC.

True but after all it's still a game. Like I said I really doubt that a 10% bonus on spearmen (the only units to get it in the copper age) would make the difference between the distruction or survival of a civ. Besides with the current tech pace -too fast- there wouldn't even be time for such advantage to be exploited. For having copper you need mining, and after that bronze working is just one tech away...

I agree with that of course.
Will your proposed solution be implemented in the next version?

no clue... I have no say in these decisions.

You said that in the ancient period people were rather tolerant of other religions. However being tolerant doesn't mean that the rulers actively encouraged as many religions as possible to exist in their cities, as you need to do in Civ4 for maximal happiness. If faced with the choice, I assume the rulers would still prefer one religion over a whole bunch, even if they don't actively act against them.

Yes we are agreed. But if a bunch of immigrants which are useful for the city (because they are workers or whatever) worships God X, then it's in the interest of the governor to let them have the temple of God X. Actively encourage/pursue a religion means using missionaries, but as you know I don't think this system is appropriate for TAM's historical timeframe. Religions spreading naturally into cities instead would represent this phenomenon quite well instead, as you cannot directly control/pursue it.

It's a pity religion doesn't work like culture in Civ4: with percentages. Then temples could instead of giving a fixed +1 happiness for instance make 20% of the followers of that religion happy. Then there wouldn't be the need to get as much religions as possible.

this is a good thought. Maybe it's possible to implement it.

Offense and defense are rather relative concepts in Civ4. In reality I assume a defensive fleet should be able to stop an invasion fleet. However in Civ4 there aren't zones of control or such and an invasion fleet can just sail past ships patrolling the coast. So in order for the defensive fleet to stop the invasion fleet they're forced to 'attack' the invasion fleet in Civ4 terms. Hence the 10% bonus doesn't make much sense IMO.

I think the defense bonus for ships is there just for a matter of gameplay and not for realism. Firaxis wanted to give players strong defensive means because otherwise you might end up having super-experienced units. On the land this is not a great problem because of the diversity of units having bonus vs other units, plus natural defensive boni, plus 5-25% defense bonus for units fortified. On the sea there is nothing like this, so my guess is that they just decided to add this 10%.

All in all the naval warfare has a very poor implementation compared to land warfare. In the last one we have different kind of units, strategic resources etc. Nothing like this for naval warfare. If any of you have tried the demo of Rise and Fall : Civilizations at war (which I advise btw ) probably has enjoyed the nice naval warfare implemented there. We can take some ideas from there to make the naval side of TAM more interesting.

Btw I don't know much about military history, so I have a general question. I'm wondering about units such as Spearman -> Armoured Spearman, Javelineer -> Armored Javelineer, the Bowman unit, the most advanced infantry units with techs such as Tactics, Military Training etc. Do these represent true advances in weapon or armour technology, or are they rather there to make sure that units get gradually better by research?

Javelineers were very much used in the ancient age (more than archers), and I think they are well represented in TAM. Armored Javs is maybe a bit fantastic, I'd say the answer to your question lies in the middle: partly they represent reality, partly they are needed for gameplay.

 

[onedreamer]

Bovinespy, and Onedreamer, Kael showed his code that allows multiple religions to spread to a city. It's a really simple edit in the python file. We can set a limit (like he has done) so that no more than x religions can naturally spread in a city. He uses 3 as the limit of religions that can spread naturally in a city, but we can change it to 2 or 4, whatever is best. I would stick with 2 or 3, though.

super news !
I'd stick with 2 or max 3 myself. Btw it would be even better if you can tie it to the city population. Am I asking too much now ?
For example up to 5 citizens 1 religion max, up to 10 2 religions max, 11+ 3 religions max.

The Greeks ripped off a significant portion of "their" pantheon from another ancient people as well

from Phoenicians for example. Not only pantheon but myths too.

 

[Shqype]

super news !
I'd stick with 2 or max 3 myself. Btw it would be even better if you can tie it to the city population. Am I asking too much now ?
For example up to 5 citizens 1 religion max, up to 10 2 religions max, 11+ 3 religions max.

I don't think it would be better ... it doesn't make sense to me. Population would tie in more meaningfully in relation to, for example, luxury resources. The more population, the more religion, isn't very accurate.

from Phoenicians for example. Not only pantheon but myths too.

Do you know of any for sure?

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Regarding so-called "ripped-off" religions...

Did you know that when a group of people in the middle-east started a new religion some twothousand years ago, the western civilizations "ripped-off" their texts and simply renamed the people to (for example) Marc, Luke, Mathew and John.

Edit (May 19): I'm using irony here in an attempt to show that when people talk of a rip-off, it's most likely a spread of culture or perhaps a mix of culture/cultural exchange. It would only be stealing if, for example, the english claimed that christianity was founded in England rather than the Middle-East.

 

[Shqype]

First off, it's Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John

Which Western civilizations are you speaking about? And what texts were "ripped off?" What were the 'original' names?

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I don't know their original names, I just assume that people in that area weren't called Mary, Joe, John, Paul and so forth. Those are simply the english versions of their names. Still same religion though.

 

[Shqype]

They were originally Jews, so their current names were similar to (or at least derived from) their real names. Those names, however, fell out of use amongst the Jewish people after the introduction of the Christian faith.

 

[onedreamer]

I don't think it would be better ... it doesn't make sense to me. Population would tie in more meaningfully in relation to, for example, luxury resources. The more population, the more religion, isn't very accurate.

Well I thought it would make sense because immigration and trade would happen mainly with big cities first. It's not really about population itself but importance of the city.

Do you know of any for sure?

I don't know for sure the names in english/latin
From phoenician's philosophy of life derived the Stoicism. And from their religion myths further developed by Greeks of Afrodites, Dionisus, Europa, Adonis.
That's what I read, but I can't be sure of course. Mr Sure is dead, we say here

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

They were originally Jews, so their current names were similar to (or at least derived from) their real names. Those names, however, fell out of use amongst the Jewish people after the introduction of the Christian faith.

Right on the dot!
And both Jupiter and Zeus are connected to sanskrit "deus pitar" (I can´t spell it in sanskrit though, have to look it up). In conclusion - Same religion different names.

 

[Pvblivs]

Right on the dot!
And both Jupiter and Zeus is connected to sanskrit "deus pitar" (I can´t spell it in sanskrit though, have to look it up). In conclusion - Same religion different names.

Not really. The kind of the religion is the same. But there are different gods as well, not only different names. There have been additional gods and some have been forgotten.

Even the way Romans and Greeks communicated about their gods was different. The greek religion was much more about some myths about gods and godlike people. The Greeks could tell you hell a lot stories about what their gods did and how they lived and where they took action. You will hardly find examples in Roman stories where Iupiter himself walked over the Earth whereas with Zeus and his fellows this was quite normal.
In opposite to this the Romans knew about their gods (though adopted partly from the Greek with different names as you observed) mainly how they related to each other. Venus was the daughter of ... Iupiter was married to ... etc. pp. They of course have similar roles as the Greek pendants but are rather symbols for that. In the Greek mythology Helios drives the sun every day over the sky in his wagon until Phaeton begs to let him do it. As a result the earth is put into a clima catastrophe ending with the burning of soil. Zeus then floods the earth to cool it down. Romans did not know such rich legends, at least, Greek legends is that what we know about influencing dominating even the culture of ancient Rome.
Roman Oracles worked differently as well like the bird watchers (latin "augur") were quite common and were not that much god-related. Much more mystical like the Oracle of Delphi instead the Greek ones.

Many more examples on the differences needed? ... en.wikipedia.org

 

[onedreamer]

Romans did not know such rich legends, at least, Greek legends is that what we know about influencing dominating even the culture of ancient Rome.

I'd rather say romans were not as much interested in legends as Greeks were. While Greeks were more philosophist, artist and dreamers, romans were much more practical and they liked to write and talk about real history rather than myths. In short, Greeks loved curves, Romans loved straight lines.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

If the Romans renamed the greek gods and then claimed that the religion was originally Roman, then it's a rip-off. If the Romans started to worship the Greek gods but renamed them, then it's a spread of culture. If two nations begin a new cult simultaniously, then it's probably a cultural exchange.

Many people, even historians, neglect that culture travels in all directions, also back and forth. It seems as if they want to simplify development to a straight line with a beginning and an end. The Greek must have been influenced by other cultures, but when the Greek civilization saw it's finest hour, these other cultures were most likely influenced by the Greeks in return. Especially when it comes to earlier religions who are based on human existance within nature rather than individual existance among humans, it's quite impossible to find where it all started. In addition, a cult of the sun for example, could exist on many different places independent from each other, simply because the sun is a nice and warm aspect of life.

Regarding TAM... I have a very good feeling about the names of the religions (sun worship, moon worship etc) as it reflects all of the above. In the games I've played so far religion have spread fast, perhaps slightly too fast. I'm interested in hearing if others have had similar experiences.
If the cities can have only one religion at this point, it could perhaps be a good idea to open up the possibility for a second religion in a city if it is being conquered. This could reflect the influence of the new rulers, or that the mix of two cultures adopt their own religious beliefs. What do you think? (And is that possible?)

 

[Pvblivs]

And your right with that, onedreamer.

Though it is - up to a certain point - a different religion. Just because the habits of a people influence its religion this doesn't mean that the religion itself doesn't change.
Romans did not take the Greek religion for themselves but adopted parts of it. That is they left what they didn't liked because they liked straight lines and they kept what they liked which may be the relationships of the gods.

So in the end they did bot believe in the Greek (the same) gods but in the way they saw the "pantheon" influenced by Greek (and the Etruscan) polytheism. That is very much a difference. Speaking of it as quite the same you have to put other polytheistic forms with similar roles into the same pot.

The cult of a sun god is different. Even if you speak of two-sided polytheism having death and life sides, that is different. But you may recognize that even Greek had some kind of two faces, so where do you say this is different and the other isn't.

As long as a single person and house may be dedicated to one certain god or two or three of many, it is very likely that they actually tolerate that other persons choose one or two different gods. Thus it is very easy to influence another civilization with a religion without removing the root of their own culture. Thus this "new religion" may be influenced by one or many but remains different.

With christianity or even "the sun god" this if course goes a completely different direction. "You shall not have any other god" is an innovation of religion that is breaking with this tolerance.

So where do you draw the line? Where do you say it's different? Of course Romans and Greek believed in quite the same things. They even believed quite the same way others did.

Though they were different. And this is, what I wanted to say.

 

[Pvblivs]

If the Romans renamed the greek gods and then claimed that the religion was originally Roman, then it's a rip-off. If the Romans started to worship the Greek gods but renamed them, then it's a spread of culture. If two nations begin a new cult simultaniously, then it's probably a cultural exchange.

I think that is too easy. The Romans had gods before (influenced by Etruscans and others). With Greek influence they neglected some, changed the function of some, even added some maybe. That they did not add many (and they didn't) indicates that they did not took the new religions and worshipped the new gods. They didn't. They worshipped very much the same. Though it may have come that the way they understood their gods could change.

This is very much the same when others talk about god. For the one god is cruel, for the other he shows mercy. So that's quite a normal kind of exchanging culture ...through talking about it.

 

[onedreamer]

[...]a cult of the sun for example, could exist on many different places independent from each other, simply because the sun is a nice and warm aspect of life.

the cult of the sun is pre-historical. The cult of the Sun GOD is a different thing though.

Regarding TAM... I have a very good feeling about the names of the religions (sun worship, moon worship etc) as it reflects all of the above.

Instead I think on the contrary. These are in reality all the same cult, namely druidism or maybe better called Nature Cult. I don't even know if it's a true religion, but I'm no thelogist so I can't discuss about that.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Before the monotheistic religions entered the scene, people worshiped (payed attention to) the different aspects of life. But instead of just talking of one divinity that surrounds us, they put different names on all these aspects. So a person could devote him/herself to the deity wich best reflected their need at a particular point of time in their life. These aspects/needs are of course similar among all people on earth and due to that and cultural exchange, the polytheistic religions are all in general very alike.

Having Egyptian Pantheon or the cult of Ra in TAM of course fits the timeframe, but to me it doesn't feel good when Vercingetorix is the founder. He could on the other hand very well be the founder of worship of the wargod or the sungod.

 

[Shqype]

From phoenician's philosophy of life derived the Stoicism. And from their religion myths further developed by Greeks of Afrodites, Dionisus, Europa, Adonis.
That's what I read, but I can't be sure of course. Mr Sure is dead, we say here

you know what I mean. We can't be sure of anything but we can provide facts and support for beliefs which probably were true. About Afrodite, are you saying that the Greeks took that goddess from the Phoenicians, or simply "further developed" the myth about her from Phoenician myths/beliefs? I contest the first claim, but believe in the 2nd. We all know where Aferdita really came from

About religion, just because there were similar figures in different religions, it doesn't mean in every case that the newer one was "ripped off" from the one it replaced. I remember watching a documentary (I believe on the History Channel or A&E) about the "Greek" polytheism and Christianity. Because of 'Zeus,' a God figure that was above all and could be both man and god, (and some other myths), it was easy for them to accept Christianity which had an omniscient God with a Son, effectively making Him both God and Man like Zeus.

 

[davbenbak]

I've never been really comfortable with the whole techs reveal religions things. It leads to the supposition that some religions are superior to others because they require more advanced thinking. I would rather see all the religions, with the exception of Christianity and maybe Judism as I'm not sure it was the dominate religon for the Phoniceans (could be wrong), spawn simutaneously at the beginning of the game with appropriate civs. One bonus of playing the Egyptians might always be founding "Sun God Worship". I would even like to see the founding of Christianity more of an event or wonder based thing.

 

[davbenbak]

Getting back to the missionaires question, perhaps the ability to build missionaires could be tied to a specific civic so if it is important to game particular game strategy you can adopt that civic and build away. Maybe Theocracy could include a holy warrior unit that has the missionary spread religon option.