The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[BenG]

I would like to have him and his faction part of the ancient Mediterranean, but then we hit the problem of compiling a city list with cities not already part of another faction currently in the mod.

You could call all the cities Alexandria, thats what Alexander did!

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I think the issue on greeks is a question of history vs gameplay. Certain (city-)states have dominated different periods throughout history (Minoans, Spartans, Myceaneans, Macedonians etc). Though there may be differences between them, they (as Shqype pointed out:see post above) spread greek culture. There isn't room for all of them on the map so a strong "greek" civ is perhaps the best way to illustrate history in TAM.
I'm not an expert on greek history, but I know they dominated the area (and with Alexander "the world"), and they did this before Rome grew powerful. Thats why I would like to see them strong early in the game.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

proposal: increase the might of greek hoplites! this would allow them for easier expansion in their historical golden age

Is it possible to decrease birth rate for certain civs and by this way make, for example, the Iberians expand slower?

 

[Astat]

my god, entry of the purists!

i wouldnt mind having macedons and all greek city states mixed into a single greek civ, representing the common greek culture.
you slap me for counting alexander's empire a greek one, but wouldnt this lead to splitting up every single greek city into an empire of its own? i mean, athens and sparta in the same nation, come on!

as was said, in terms of playability, one powerful greek nation surely makes more sense than 2 weak ones that crowd each other..

Though there may be differences between them, they (as Shqype pointed out:see post above) spread greek culture. There isn't room for all of them on the map so a strong "greek" civ is perhaps the best way to illustrate history in TAM.
I'm not an expert on greek history, but I know they dominated the area (and with Alexander "the world"), and they did this before Rome grew powerful. Thats why I would like to see them strong early in the game.

 

[Mesix]

I think Alexander is given too much credit as a leader. He was a brilliant General, but he was never really a king. Phillip II conquered the warring factions in the region and united them as a strong despot. His son Alexander (who was likely responsible for his assassination) took Daddy's powerful military and used it to conquer the Persian and Egyptian Empires (as well as pushing into the Indian subcontinent). Alsxander's "reign" lasted a few short years and the "empire" he built quickly degenerated into three smaller kingdoms. His only true lasting legacy was to spread the Greek language and culture througout the Middle East.

I agree that making one strong Greek civ in the scenario is more appropriate than having two weak ones.

As a side note, Phillip II was already planning to invade Asia Minor to "retake" or "liberate" the "Greek" cities that were part of the Persian Empire. If he had not been assassinated we would likely be learning about Phillip the Great in modern history books.

Edit: Perhaps you could play with the scrypting in a later version and have the events of Alexander's conquest play out. Pella could pop up as a Barbarian city around 350 BC (or so) and the computer controlled army could attampt to conquer the civs on the Eastern side of the map. You could put in similar events to simulate the barbarians decending on Rome or the invasian of Mongol horsemen into Northern Europe.

 

[Mesix]

Firaxis made the mistake of having Alexander as the leader of Greece. I would like to have him and his faction part of the ancient Mediterranean, but then we hit the problem of compiling a city list with cities not already part of another faction currently in the mod.

Alexander should not have any cities that are not part of another faction...afterall, the Macedonians did not found cities but conquered cities that belonged to someone else. Perhaps cities that are conquered could be renamed Alexandria as was recommended by BenG.

 

[Pvblivs]

I think Alexander is given too much credit as a leader. He was a brilliant General, but he was never really a king. Phillip II conquered the warring factions in the region and united them as a strong despot. His son Alexander (who was likely responsible for his assassination) took Daddy's powerful military and used it to conquer the Persian and Egyptian Empires (as well as pushing into the Indian subcontinent). Alsxander's "reign" lasted a few short years and the "empire" he built quickly degenerated into three smaller kingdoms. His only true lasting legacy was to spread the Greek language and culture througout the Middle East.

I agree that making one strong Greek civ in the scenario is more appropriate than having two weak ones.

As a side note, Phillip II was already planning to invade Asia Minor to "retake" or "liberate" the "Greek" cities that were part of the Persian Empire. If he had not been assassinated we would likely be learning about Phillip the Great in modern history books.

Edit: Perhaps you could play with the scrypting in a later version and have the events of Alexander's conquest play out. Pella could pop up as a Barbarian city around 350 BC (or so) and the computer controlled army could attampt to conquer the civs on the Eastern side of the map. You could put in similar events to simulate the barbarians decending on Rome or the invasian of Mongol horsemen into Northern Europe.

Reading this I think Firaxis did a great job.

As I am fighting Alex in almost every game, most of which wars were through his backstabbing, I very often come to the conclusion that Alex just wants to play with his "toys".
His life line though never is very long as he is really offering himself as the first to die. Not assassinated but erased from the map with all of his daddy's toys

 

[Greenlocke]

Hmmm...
Forgive me...

But Alexander was a great general - both strategically and tactically. If you have a chance, read some books about the Hellenestic age, or better yet, try Arrian's primary source material. Here are a few of the juicy tidbits you might discover.

1. Alexander was Macedonian. His father Phillip II was Macedonian. Phillip's father actually paid tribute to the strongest of the Illyrian tribes, the Antariatae, around the 4th century B.C.E. Unfortunately, I haven't found a date for this Mod anywhere...I'm assuming around 500-300 BC?

2. There was a decided difference between Macedonians and Greeks. Different religions, different culture. Different methods for choosing leaders. Different styles of warfare. (They both used the hoplite, but Alex's cavalry were FAR superior to the almost useless Greek cavalry.) Moreover, their world-views were fundamentally different. I understand why Firaxis grouped them together, but that doesn't mean we have to. I mean, If we have Medes and Persians.....

3. Re: Macedonia's influence. It was Phillip who conquered much of Greece - and Macedonia remained more influential - militarily and politically - then Greece up to the invasion of the Balkans by Rome.

4. Alexander's reign was short because he died, and was never able to consolidate his gains. Rather than being only a mere general, Alexander sought to unite his Macedonian heritage with the ways of the East. Arrian is full of examples of this (such as adopting Eastern dress, accepting the eastern oligarchy into his ranks, and forcing his men to marry eastern women, thereby creating a mixed upper class.). Had he had the time, I believe he would have succeeded.

5. Alexander's cities. Actually, Arrian and others cite over 800 cities founded by Alexander. While this number may seem high, take a look at the size of the empire he conquered. Like the Romans, Alexander planted veterans and founded towns from which to govern his new domains. Moreover, Alexandria was perhaps the greatest city in the ancient world. All texts entering its ports were recorded, leading to the greatest library in the history of the world. Too bad the early Roman Christians (ie: the post Council of Nicea ones who 'decided' what Christianity would be) decided that such a store of knowledge might be dangerous for them (as it would reveal the true events of history) and burned the library to the ground.

(This last bit is not entirely proven, but I can direct you to sources if you want.)

Either way, we can't add Macedonia to the game without adding a bigger map. I would like to advocate placing a few extra cities for the 'big' nations, and making settlers more expensive in general, which should slow down tribes like the Iberians.

Perhaps we should start a seperate thread for discussions like this? I don't know about everyone else, but I think that debates of this type tend to clog a Mod's forum. Maybe we should us PM's instead?

What do you think Thamis? Maybe a final say might help...

 

[thamis]

I chose Mycenae, as this is seen as the "cradle of Greek civilization".

Whether you want to call Alexander Greek or Macedonian in the end doesn't matter, because the nationalities of today didn't exist back then. He was certainly born in the region of Macedonia and led what people back then called Greeks to conquer Persia.

Anyway, he's not in because I prefer Mycenae as the truly Greek civilization.

 

[Mesix]

Hmmm...
Forgive me...

But Alexander was a great general - both strategically and tactically. If you have a chance, read some books about the Hellenestic age, or better yet, try Arrian's primary source material. Here are a few of the juicy tidbits you might discover.

I have read quite a bit about the period, and that is how I came to the conclusion that Alexander was a General and not a king. Alexander never ruled any people other than his military. Following his death, the areas of his conquest degenerated into local fiefdoms which coalesced into three loosely affiliated kingdoms consisting of the area in the Balkans, Asia Minor, the Middle East, and Egypt. From an aspect of the game, the short reign of Alexander would encompas one or two turns depending upon which speed setting you use.

The problem with a lot of the primary source material is that it is propaganda of its day. To get a good picture of what was going on you have to read both Macedonian and Athenian sources and wade through the heavily biased BS that they each use.

The greatness of the city of Alexandria in Egypt had nothing to do with Alexander. The city became a center of commerce and intellectual pursuits in the centuries that followed Alexander's death. Ptolemy had more impact on the City.

As far as Alexander merging Eastern and Greek cultures, this is more part of the propaganda of the day than it is historical fact. He was very accepting of the cultures in the places that his conquest took him, but there were two reasons for this (neither of them very enlightened). As the expedition grew longer Alexander needed to replace the dwindling ranks of his army which was done through the conscription of local soldiers. The other reason for his adoption of local customs started when the expedition reached Egypt. Upon conquering Egypt, Alexander was named Pharoah, a living god in the form of a man. The title of Godking went straight to Alexander's head and he began to adopt Egyptian dress and customs. As he pressed further East he attempted to impose his self deification upon the areas that he conquered often imitating thier local heores or traditions.

In the end Alexander died very mush a man and not a god by any stretch of the imagination. The circumstances of his death are considered a historical mystery, but this is also due to propaganda of the time which attempted to make him more than what he was. The symptoms of his death are consistent with complications from malaria which he contracted in India. There was likely no vast conspiracy to dethrone him, but that does make for a more interesting plot.

 

[Astat]

an extra city (or extra settler?) for "powerful" ancient civs sounds interesting.. gotta watch the impact on that game.

well after all, i don't care whether you call them greeks or macs - just give them really strong hoplites.
however, this will mean that there's no place left for a heavy compagnion cavalry unit.. a shame


is there any way to code regional units into the game, as in "Rome: Total Realism"?
-> units that can only be built in a certain area (as opposed to being dependant on a certain resource)..

 

[Shqype]

Mesix, I enjoy reading your posts

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I searched the internet for more information about Alexander and the Macedons and I found that this is a burning hot issue for some folks.
The slavic people (term used on sites) claim the macedons as a completely different people invaded and conquered greece. They use ancient greek quotes as evidence. The greeks on the other hand says that the macedons were greeks (though somewhat different) that in a league with other greek states conquered and united all of greece. They use the very same quotes as proof.
Personally I find it interresting but confusing with all the "truths" out there.

Anyway, in terms of gameplay, thamis, has spoken:

I chose Mycenae, as this is seen as the "cradle of Greek civilization".

Whether you want to call Alexander Greek or Macedonian in the end doesn't matter, because the nationalities of today didn't exist back then. He was certainly born in the region of Macedonia and led what people back then called Greeks to conquer Persia.

Anyway, he's not in because I prefer Mycenae as the truly Greek civilization.

 

[thamis]

an extra city (or extra settler?) for "powerful" ancient civs sounds interesting.. gotta watch the impact on that game.

well after all, i don't care whether you call them greeks or macs - just give them really strong hoplites.
however, this will mean that there's no place left for a heavy compagnion cavalry unit.. a shame


is there any way to code regional units into the game, as in "Rome: Total Realism"?
-> units that can only be built in a certain area (as opposed to being dependant on a certain resource)..

Companion Cavalry would be Heavy Cavalry. We could put it in but chose not to, but then, nothing is ever set in stone.

 

[Shqype]

I searched the internet for more information about Alexander and the Macedons and I found that this is a burning hot issue for some folks.
The slavic people (term used on sites) claim the macedons as a completely different people invaded and conquered greece. They use ancient greek quotes as evidence. The greeks on the other hand says that the macedons were greeks (though somewhat different) that in a league with other greek states conquered and united all of greece. They use the very same quotes as proof.
Personally I find it interresting but confusing with all the "truths" out there.

Anyway, in terms of gameplay, thamis, has spoken:

Well, I'm not sure what Slavic people you are talking about, but the Slavic people of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia like to believe they came from ancient Macedonians; it is a nationalist myth that gave them justification from breaking away from Bulgaria.

As Mesix has stated, the two peoples (ancient and modern Macedonians) are two completely different groups of people.

As for Greece, it is just another attempt to claim the glory that Greeks like to claim. Alexander spread Greek culture, but he was not Greek. Mesix cleared this up properly in one of his posts.

But, I suppose such a discussion will not get us anywhere with this mod. How about gameplay related issues?

 

[cider]

ahhh... i want version 1.7
i just wrote my last highschool exam today and now i have 2 weeks to play TAM
can't wait to see all of the new stuff... the last version i played was 1.3 i think.

 

[mgdpublic]

I'm not sure what version of this mod I have. When was 1.6 released?

 

[Shqype]

ahhh... i want version 1.7
i just wrote my last highschool exam today and now i have 2 weeks to play TAM
can't wait to see all of the new stuff... the last version i played was 1.3 i think.

Wow!

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.

 

[Greenlocke]

Couple of things...

Whether you want to call Alexander Greek or Macedonian in the end doesn't matter, because the nationalities of today didn't exist back then. He was certainly born in the region of Macedonia and led what people back then called Greeks to conquer Persia.

Alexander was Macedonian. In the ancient world. He was the Macedonian King. And he led Macedonians, with some Greek mercenaries. But they all spoke Greek, if thats what you mean.

A couple of Gameplay things:
1. Shouldn't there be more Gold for the Medes? It was relatively abundant.
2. Can we give Carthage a better late-era warship. They did dominate the western Med shipping lanes.
3. Are we planning on adding a few more wonders? I built them all quite early.
4. Slave Market produces 1 free citizen. Huh?!? No really, I understand what you mean here, but I was certainly surprised when I saw it.

That's all I've got for now. Keep up the great work. Can't wait for the new map.


Alright. Just a little response to a post above. Wasn't sure if this should be a PM or not, decided to spoil it, just in case. It pertains to the historical debate, not a gameplay issue. Disregard if so inclined.

Spoiler :

The problem with a lot of the primary source material is that it is propaganda of its day. To get a good picture of what was going on you have to read both Macedonian and Athenian sources and wade through the heavily biased BS that they each use.

I agree that much primary source material is propaganda. But who's side would Arrian be on?

My second degree is classical history, and I have just published a paper describing Alexander's civil administration. I disagree with your statement regarding Alexander's leadership/statesmanship. Obviously, his kingdom did not last after his death - but that was because it had only been united a few years earlier. Nevertheless, the 150 years following Alexander's death resulted in wars between Alexander's successors - not petty local fiefdoms. Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Antigonids, Lysimachus, Demetrius - all Macedonians who carved up his empire after his death. Alexander didn't plan for his succession. Perhaps that is why you think he was a poor king.

He made MANY civil and cultural changes, both within Macedonia and Asia. I can't name them all, but for example: waterworks, ports, gardens, agoras, monuments, gymnasiums, roads, not to mention his relatively successful attempts to unify two disparate cultures. He minted his own coins and founded at least 80 cities (and possible as many as 800, although this exaggerated number represents forts, stockades, towns.) In his short span as a king (between the mutiny of his soldiers in India and his death in 323) he accomplished far more than many entire dynastic lines. And he was instrumental in developing the city of Alexandria. He picked the site, planned the foundations (of all of the major buildings), and encouraged trade around the city during his reign. But yes, Ptolemy and his successors made the city truly great.

Finally regarding the sources. What sources are you talking about? What Macedonian sources? What Athenian ones? Few of the sources survive at all. Historians use Arrian because he is relatively unbiased (being a Greek-speaking historian born in Nicomedia (Asia Minor) during Roman times - himself a testament to Alexander's influence). He is our only access to many of the works of Ptolemy, Callisthenes, Nearchus and Cleitarchus - all of whom were actually on Alexander's expedition. I really don't know what sources you are talking about. Athenian? Who? The world of classical studies would love to have access to this source? Do you mean Quintius Curtius or Justinus - both second-rate, neither Athenian? Plutarch? Phylarchus? Polybius? Diodorus? There is a general consensus among historians that Arrian's text is by FAR the most accurate. He does laud Alexander's personality a bit much for my tastes, but his record of Alexander's achievements has no recognizable equal.

I'm not a regular poster on these forums, but I would assume that an ancient history MOD would want to have knowledgeable people around for questions such as these. To dismiss my posts so flippantly, without offering any proof for YOUR posts strikes me as both rude and immature, not to mention unprofessional.

It pains me to see people with a flawed view of classical history - it pains me more to see that view recognized and accepted as fact by a whole new generation of people too lazy to actually do the research. But, I guess that a few magazines and survey books are all that is needed for a comprehensive knowledge of ancient history.

Sorry for the rant. It just gets my hackles up to see someone condemning primary sources. They are the best and only sources we have! All secondary sources are based upon them. As a reader, you should always follow your author's sources back to the primary source. Otherwise, you end up in a society where the people believe whatever their governement decides is truth.

 

[Shqype]

And he led Macedonians, with some Greek mercenaries. But they all spoke Greek, if thats what you mean.

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.