The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[schlappi]

Was there ever any discussion about a new map to this mod?
I'd love the idea of more barbarians from remote areas like russia, skandinavia and the british isles pestering the europeans especially. I have in mind a map like from the "rise of rome" scenario, where the barbarians pose a real threat to all civilizations!

 

[Ick of the East]

Alexandria is not typical for every phase of Egypt in TAM, true, but for a long period.

True. And if the game began around 300 BC nobody would argue with Cleo and Alexandria.

If we start with only native Egyptian towns and rulers, Alexandria can still be built and become the vital, great city it was. But let's let the Greeks do it.

Let's not have Egyptians naming their cities after Greek conquerors from 2-3000 years in the future.

Anyway, I'm having a great game. The Punic Wars took place a few centuries after they should have, and I (Carthage) won them this time. I got yer salted fields right here, Rome!

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Was there ever any discussion about a new map to this mod?
I'd love the idea of more barbarians from remote areas like russia, skandinavia and the british isles pestering the europeans especially. I have in mind a map like from the "rise of rome" scenario, where the barbarians pose a real threat to all civilizations!

There is a huge map "under progress" wich will have room for Britons, Goths, Nubians etc. I think Karhgath is working on it.
In the future it would be nice to see other scenarios as well. Perhaps "the fertile crescent" (think present map moved several steps to the east), or a "Kaanan" scenario with Judeans, Israelites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Egypt etc. Why not a "fight for Italy"-scenario with the Etruscans, the Romans, Gaul, Carthage and the Greeks, or even a "Hellas"-scenario with the Greek city-states bashing each other?

 

[onedreamer]

I would really like to know what your point is. That I have a love affair with Egypt, Nubia, Carthage, Israel etc., is my lookout not yours. As I said before we all have our favorite civs and all of us are very protective of them. I would love for you to sing the tune regarding Rome. When the barbarian invaders set up successor states in what was left of the western Roman empire, no one then or hereafter referred to them as Roman. That I named Ptolemy and his descendents as an artificial attempt at grafting themselves into the mainstream of Egyptian society is what it is. It is funny that whenever I post something extolling Egypt's virtues, everyone else offers up constructive criticism. You do not argue in an effective manner; you fall back on the age old cover of bringing up tangential references and issues (e.g. the whole mishmash about America that you wrote) that are quite beside the point. As a matter of fact I am an American whose mother was a full-blooded member of the Cheyenne Nation (Native Americans), so I could argue both sides of that one. But so what. We were talking about the minor care concern of a couple of posters and past contributers to have two city names changed to our liking. And there were some constructive postings that illustrated how we could bring this about. And it was not as if I wrote "this is horrible I want you guys to change all of the names yourselves and do all of the work". I proposed to provide a detailed list of Egyptian names that could be substituted for the two that were found wanting. Ick of the East wrote one in his reply. Now this is not an attack on anyone but Shyqpe and Viriato can wax poetic over their individual civ's of interest from units, city names, wonder names, etc. and there is no big outcry. Even though historically both of those Civs spent extended periods of time under Greco-Roman domination including the naming of various cities. Yet they are never referred to as ultra nationalists or fanatical historians. Perhaps there is more behind your comments than you realize. Yes it is just a game...and it also more than just a game as evidenced by everyone's committment on this forum to the free exchange of information without rancor. I apologize if I offended your sensibilities. Thanks for your suggestion darkedone02.

I was commenting a word you plain simply invented, specifically "real egyptian" . You haven't replied back on anything I wrote, especially on my question about that, yet you managed to write quite many lines and to define my comparisons as mishmash (without explaining why) and to state that I do not argue in an effective way (without explaining why or how should I do it) ? Ah well... you have a future as a politician: a person who can fill an interview of words without having said anything and answered to any question.

 

[onedreamer]

Cleopatra and Alexandria make just as much sense in the Egypt of 4000BC. You can play as the Greeks, conquer Egypt, and change the names all you want. But let's make it an option.

ROFL... and how about Julius Ceasar in the Rome of 4000BC ? That makes perfect sense ? Ok.

 

[onedreamer]

This is not quite the same. Alexandria is not typical for every phase of Egypt in TAM, true, but for a long period. To speak in turns of TAM, it is not just the latter, but also a major part of the game (up from 300 BC until 500 AD) where Alexandria is significant for Egypt. Even the Ptolemy period of Egypt was an important part of Egyptian history, not only influencing Egypt with Greek culture but influencing the whole world with the culture of Egypt heavily.[...]

Thanks God there are people that can be objective about this matter.

 

[Pvblivs]

True. And if the game began around 300 BC nobody would argue with Cleo and Alexandria.

If we start with only native Egyptian towns and rulers, Alexandria can still be built and become the vital, great city it was. But let's let the Greeks do it.

Greece may have found the city, but it was Egyptian (politically) after a very short time. Like the cities of Trier (Germany) or Vienna (Austria). Sure, the first notable parts of their "life" were Roman (Augusta Treverorum and Vindobona). But neither does Vanilla Civ respect this in any naming aspects nor do the Romans found these cities.
Why? Because it is hardly possible. Because with civ all will most likely develop very differently.

Let's not have Egyptians naming their cities after Greek conquerors from 2-3000 years in the future.

That is impossible. It might be possible for a bunch of examples you can count with your 20 fingers and toes. But not consistently for whole TAM. And how do you manage the renaming if you don't play as Egypt or Greece yourself and they conquer each other? What do you do when you have a different history than "reality"? Do you know the Phoenician/Carthagian name of "Roma", Veii and Ravenna?

Did it bother you, that your capital was called "Carthago" in your current game and not Qart Hadasht like in "reality"?

 

[thamis]

Ok, this Egypt naming debate is bugging me a bit. It leads nowhere, and there are two standpoints here, both of which are valid.

Let me write down a general ruleset for the choosing and naming of cities which should clarify the issue, at least for TAM:

1) Find the most important cities for each CIV and include them in the list, in order of importance.

2) Original names are preferrable over foreign names (ie Roma instead of Rome, Athenai instead of Athens). If the name becomes unrecognizable to the general English public, keep the most recognizable name (Quart'Hadasht is unrecognizable for most people, Carthage is the English form, but the Latin Carthago is most recognizable and nonetheless an ancient name).

3) Cities founded by the civ are preferrable over those conquered. If a conquered city rose to higher importance in the new nation than in the old, it should be included in the new list. Examples would be Treverorum (Trier) for Rome or Alexandria for Egypt. They go into the conquering nation's list.

4) In the case of two civs having an equal share to the city (like with several Mesopotamian cities), try to find two different names for the city (can't think of an example, but if Rome and France were in the game, Massilia and Marseilles would be an example). The city is included twice, with each name in the respective city list. If there are no two names, we gotta discuss it or simply leave the city out.

I hope that clarifies the issue. In the case of Egypt, I would like Ankhenaton to go ahead and build a more Egyptian city list, but please include Alexandria and Heliopolis. In the case of Rome, a new city list would also be good: Prioritize Italian cities, but also include important ones from Gaul and Germania (with their Latin names).

 

[thamis]

To clarify further, here are a few examples of cities that should go into the list, with their respective names:

ROME:
Roma, not Rome
Treverorum

GREECE:
Athenai (Athenae?), not Athens

EGYPT:
Alexandria
Heliopolis
(if there's a more Egyptian spelling, try to find it)

 

[thamis]

On Dacia / Getae. Ok, we can rename them. Sarmizegetusa (or however it's spelled) should stay the capital, and we can change the list to the ~dava names. Any volunteers for doing that?

 

[evanb]

That's the way of spelling it: first the "z" and then the "s". (I wonder how it sounds pronounced in English...)

About volunteering, I think I can make time for it. Just tell me what exactly I have to do.

 

[thamis]

That's the way of spelling it: first the "z" and then the "s". (I wonder how it sounds pronounced in English...)

About volunteering, I think I can make time for it. Just tell me what exactly I have to do.

Simple send us a list (as text) of the cities in order of importance. You can post it here, that would be great.

 

[evanb]

Well, I can make a list of cities, but I'm not sure about their importance... All lists I ever found on the Internet were alphabetical.

However, I found a map with the approximate locations of Dacian cities. Should I make the list starting with the cities closest to Sarmizegetusa, and then the ones a little further, and so on?

 

[thamis]

Sounds good.

 

[Elhoim]

Why don´t you ask Rhye how he did in his mod to change the name of a city according to it´s location and owner? For example, if you are the romans and found a city in the east coast of spain, it will be called Valentia. If the spanish capture it, it will become Valencia. It is a nice touch, and perhaps settle some of this debate.

Another nice thing is the civs appearing at different ages, but it is much difficult to implement.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Well, I can make a list of cities, but I'm not sure about their importance... All lists I ever found on the Internet were alphabetical.

However, I found a map with the approximate locations of Dacian cities. Should I make the list starting with the cities closest to Sarmizegetusa, and then the ones a little further, and so on?

If you do your research on the internet, make sure to check and doublecheck your sources!! There are some very good sites to be found and used, but there are also a lot of first-class crap out there, and sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference.

 

[evanb]

Here goes:

Sarmizegetusa
Dokidava
Sacidava
Ziridava
Singidava
Utidava
Sangidava (this is supposed to be somewhere near my town )
Patridava
Predava
Rusidava
Ramidava
Pelendava (modern day Craiova)
Burridava
Piroboridava
Petrodava
Carsidava
Netindava
Zusidava
Perburidava
Sucidava
Sagadava

Is that enough?

 

[Hypnotoad]

I looked it up in my big Greek dictionary to make sure...

It's Athenai not Athenae. The name is a masculine plural form of the Goddess' name (it would be Athenae if it were feminine plural).

Now, on to the patch:

I've been playing on immortal. I'm not quite sure what I think about the new smithies. They are incredibly powerful. Basically, I started playing a game as the Babylonians forgetting about the new smithies. I noticed I kept on just being beaten to the wonders (I don't know if that is because of great engineers or not). Then I thought I would try playing as Greece, which normally has a hard time building wonders of the world, I've found. The first or second thing I researched was bronze working.

I ended up getting all of the masonry wonders, all the mathematics wonders, etc. I would say I currently about three quarters of the wonders. Now I've done this before as Phonecia (an industrious civ), so perhaps this isn't so bad. But it is definitely noticable.

I'm also finding the tech rate still way too fast. At 30 BC no tech is taking more than 7 turns and many just one. It's 30 AD and I'm a few turns from getting the 12 strength land unit (sorry, can't remember then name).

In fact, I would say the new trade house probably about negates the 10% increase in tech costs. Right now I have 6 trade routes (base 1 + currency + great lighthouse + aristocracy) that are increased by 90% (harbor + trade house). Again, I think you need to reduce the number of trade routes somehow. I think an overhall of Aristocracy would be the easiest way (free specialists? no commerce bonus in capital or trade routes).

-- Hypnotoad

 

[Shqype]

I agree, I don't like the new changes to buildings which provide extra science and extra commerce ... I can have my tech rate up at 100% the whole game and still make an incredible surplus of money.

 

[thamis]

Ok, I'll look at improvements again once I get time to play the game. I have to write a conference paper (on computer games, haha) until the 30th of June.