The Ancient Mediterranean MOD

[Hypnotoad]

I don't think Carthage should be Seafaring. From what I understand, the Romans dominated the seas, at least during the second Punic war.

Charismatic is the obvious one. Hannibal was popular in Italy.

Edit: Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! What if all seafaring cultures started with a transport boat that moved at least three. This way it would be faster for them to settle by sea rather than by land, just like in the real world. Alternatively, you (perhaps) could make it so every time a sea-faring Civ made a settler, it built a sea-transport along with it (strength 0, carrying capacity: 1, movement 3 or 4).

-- David

 

[Broken Hawk]

Is there a scheduled release date for v1.91?

 

[Shqype]

No, because people keep mentioning new things to add balance

Probably we'll release 1.91 as is in a day or two and then save the rest of the balance changes for v1.92 or something.

 

[Gladi]

I'm not saying that, just saying that those "barbarians" were never Greek to begin with (despite Greek claims to them today).

Bright day
now now, maybe Alexander was not greek (and what was he doing with greek name anyway?) but by him, macedonian ruling cast was if not greek, going through the "motions" of being Greek. Something similar happend in Eastern Europe- nobility germanised.

Oh, glitch- Hadrumetum has its name displayed as txt key.

 

[Shqype]

Bright day
now now, maybe Alexander was not greek (and what was he doing with greek name anyway?) but by him, macedonian ruling cast was if not greek, going through the "motions" of being Greek. Something similar happend in Eastern Europe- nobility germanised.

Oh, glitch- Hadrumetum has its name displayed as txt key.

That Greek name was a result of the influence of Greek culture. The ancient Macedonians were said to have had Illyrian (or even Thracian) roots, but their ruling class adopted Greek cultural characteristics. Alexander the Great spread Greek culture throughout the ancient world because he was brought up with it and was taught from a young age that that was "the civilized way."

 

[Hypnotoad]

So the Macedonians were a group that became Greek through cultural influence? If only the game had some way to simulate this...



Really, arguing about who is "really Greek" versus who is a new comer is a bit silly.

-- Hypnotoad

 

[Tiger3416]

Good to see a historian here! We're all just hobby history buffs...

If you see any inaccuracies, please let us know. Also, if you feel like writing some civilopedia stuff, let us know too.

Oh, and if you're a grad student in ancient history... can you read / write in ancient languages? It would be really cool to have city names in their ancient tongues.

The only ancient language I am good in is Ancient Greek and I have just started Latin. I have not even looked at the civilopedia yet, but I will take a look at.

Alexander the Great wasn't Greek, he was an ancient Macedonian that adopted and spread Greek culture. Huge difference. Which renders your point useless The Spartans were a different story, on the other hand.

Yes it is true that Alexander was a Macedonian, but the Macedonians considered themselves Greek. Most ancient historians argue over what is Greek. What is Greek, is it the Mycenaean’s or the Minoan’s, what about the Dorian’s? If the Dorian invaders are not Greek then you have to count out the entire Peloponnesus as being Greek since they where mostly Dorian. It is next to impossible to label what is Greek, or Roman, or Babylonian, or Egyptian in ancient times since so many civilizations rose, fell, where conquered and assimilated into one another. Even the Greeks looked at themselves more as Athenian’s, Spartan’s, Corinthian’s, Theban’s, and so on. So yes ethnically the Macedonians where not Greek, but neither where the Spartan’s… The Macedonians fought like Greeks, mostly spoke Greek, worshipped Greek Gods, and participated in the Olympics. They where culturally Greek and Philip united Greece in the Corinthian League... So in my opinion the Macedonians are as much Greek as the Spartan’s or the Athenian’s.

But if you disagree with me thats cool, half my professors do too. But the other half agree with me.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

To the TAM team, my suggestions were just that. I hope they help or at least add to what helps you in your decisions.

I see your point Shqype concerning Barbaric trait and UU's.

To Pvblis: Not player centric? Here is the scenario that I keep finding myself in:

I achieve a technological edge, build up a super strong invasion force, and attack a neighbor. Suddenly, another neighbor attacks me, instantly sensing that my flanks are less protected than the turn before. Now, I'm on two fronts, this continues for several turns, then Rome or Egypt attacks me...heck I've been attacked by the Gauls and the Iberians in some games.

It's a big dog pile before you know it. I'm doing my best to beat them off, holding my own, and then...a massive invasion force from Germanic or Scythian or the Dacians comes down (thanks to open borders) and boom, I 'm facing a force the size of all the other invaders I've already been facing...and I reboot.

Maybe the Hittites are beyond my capabilities at the moment, at least on Monarch level.

Carthage seems to have it easy, as long as you maintain a strong fleet, no one seems to bother you.

 

[Shqype]

The only ancient language I am good in is Ancient Greek and I have just started Latin. I have not even looked at the civilopedia yet, but I will take a look at.



Yes it is true that Alexander was a Macedonian, but the Macedonians considered themselves Greek. Most ancient historians argue over what is Greek. What is Greek, is it the Mycenaean’s or the Minoan’s, what about the Dorian’s? If the Dorian invaders are not Greek then you have to count out the entire Peloponnesus as being Greek since they where mostly Dorian. It is next to impossible to label what is Greek, or Roman, or Babylonian, or Egyptian in ancient times since so many civilizations rose, fell, where conquered and assimilated into one another. Even the Greeks looked at themselves more as Athenian’s, Spartan’s, Corinthian’s, Theban’s, and so on. So yes ethnically the Macedonians where not Greek, but neither where the Spartan’s… The Macedonians fought like Greeks, mostly spoke Greek, worshipped Greek Gods, and participated in the Olympics. They where culturally Greek and Philip united Greece in the Corinthian League... So in my opinion the Macedonians are as much Greek as the Spartan’s or the Athenian’s.

But if you disagree with me thats cool, half my professors do too. But the other half agree with me.

Actually, there's evidence that points to the Dorians being either Illyrian or Thracian as well (their mythological leaders have Illyrian names), but that's a whole other discussion.

But I understand your point. It's just that I see a big difference in ethnicity and adopted culture. The ancient Macedonians weren't Greek by ethnicity, but they adopted Greek culture, and thus put themselves in a transitional state towards assimilating themselves into Greek culture and eventually (arguably) becomming Greek. But still, this happened after Alexander the Great.

kwarriorpoet, why don't you try playing as another player and seeing if you get the same results? Please tell us what happens

 

[Pvblivs]

The only ancient language I am good in is Ancient Greek and I have just started Latin. I have not even looked at the civilopedia yet, but I will take a look at.

Uh oh. Both is completely useless. Believe me No, just kidding, both, ancient Greek and Latin are a strong support to learn other languages and even understand many things in history better.
Congratulations to your study choice. Wish I would have choosen this way because this was were my heart had been drawing me towards

Yes it is true that Alexander was a Macedonian, but the Macedonians considered themselves Greek. Most ancient historians argue over what is Greek. What is Greek, is it the Mycenaean’s or the Minoan’s, what about the Dorian’s? If the Dorian invaders are not Greek then you have to count out the entire Peloponnesus as being Greek since they where mostly Dorian. It is next to impossible to label what is Greek, or Roman, or Babylonian, or Egyptian in ancient times since so many civilizations rose, fell, where conquered and assimilated into one another. Even the Greeks looked at themselves more as Athenian’s, Spartan’s, Corinthian’s, Theban’s, and so on. So yes ethnically the Macedonians where not Greek, but neither where the Spartan’s… The Macedonians fought like Greeks, mostly spoke Greek, worshipped Greek Gods, and participated in the Olympics. They where culturally Greek and Philip united Greece in the Corinthian League... So in my opinion the Macedonians are as much Greek as the Spartan’s or the Athenian’s.

Well, that is something that can be asked for many countries in the world. What is U.S. American? What is German? What is British or even English? And of course: What is Greek? What is Turkish? It's not that easy to answer.

And because of this I strongly support your arguments by saying: After all, Makedonia was just Greek, culturally. Even before Alexander. We cannot be that specific in a game were we can just implement like a dozen civs that all have to fit into the same period. There is a choice many many more. But we can't. It would be either not understandible or unplayable or both.

Now, let's make a huge decision and drop all civs except the Indo-European and the Basques... for Europe. That should fit

 

[Pvblivs]

But I understand your point. It's just that I see a big difference in ethnicity and adopted culture.

Do you? Well how is culture transported? Because they read newspapers about big Greece? There are many ways to adopt culture. One common is just to take a wife from a village fifty kilometres away and to marry not only her but her customs, her family etc.
And now for Greek. Even if we start with a "clean Greek ethnicity" - how long do you think will they remain Greek only ethnically?

Could you distinguish a naked Macedonian from a naked Greek?

How do you define ethnicity now?

All you know today of ancient Makedonia and Greece and of their "ethnicity" is because of their culture that survived in languages, books, ruins. So if historians discover that Makedonia was not Greece in every detail it may be only because a part of their culture survived, because it is transported in a song or a book into our times.

Have you ever read anything about genom analyses according ancient Makedonia and Greece?

 

[Pvblivs]

To Pvblis: Not player centric? Here is the scenario that I keep finding myself in:<snip>

How much did the others like your neighbour? Did you piss off some of your attackers with the attack on him? Could your victim have the power to bribe your attackers (with techs or so)?

This what you experience now is not the first time I see it. And it is very seldom me that is the victim of such a dogpile.

 

[Waterloo]

I don't think Carthage should be Seafaring. From what I understand, the Romans dominated the seas, at least during the second Punic war.

Charismatic is the obvious one. Hannibal was popular in Italy.

Well,
if I remember right (lessons concerning the Punic wars, were a few years back), the Romans dominated the Seas after turning Sea battles into land battles. Without a chance against the carthaginian seamanship, they developed the "corax", a device which enabled them to enter the enemy ship thus using their superiority in hand-to-hand-combat.
So far a sea battle had been all about ramming the enemy ship, and whoever was left afloat afterwards had won.
So I think Carthage should be sea-faring.
In comparance to Rome they cannot really be called a supreme militaristic force, yes I know Hannibal was great, but what did he achieve in the end?
Suicide at some minor eastern court (was it Pergamon?). Carthagos elders lacked to support him in Italy, so he had to return home, and was beaten soundly by Scipio.

Carthago's traits should be more like: Sea-faring, financial (they were great traders, a strong fleet and military was more a consequence from trade and colonies then the origin).

Waterloo

 

[Pvblivs]

Carthago's traits should be more like: Sea-faring, financial (they were great traders, a strong fleet and military was more a consequence from trade and colonies then the origin).

And organized. As they relatively fast created a great empire spanning the north east of Africa. And that produced huge maintenance costs for sure

If Carthage is awarded a 3rd trait, that is...

 

[Tiger3416]

Actually, there's evidence that points to the Dorians being either Illyrian or Thracian as well (their mythological leaders have Illyrian names), but that's a whole other discussion.

But I understand your point. It's just that I see a big difference in ethnicity and adopted culture. The ancient Macedonians weren't Greek by ethnicity, but they adopted Greek culture, and thus put themselves in a transitional state towards assimilating themselves into Greek culture and eventually (arguably) becomming Greek. But still, this happened after Alexander the Great.

kwarriorpoet, why don't you try playing as another player and seeing if you get the same results? Please tell us what happens

There is actually a lot of evidence that the Dorians came from the same region as the Illyrians. In fact there are some that argue that the Illyrians moving into the region is what sparked the Dorian invasion of Grecce. All I am trying to say is that even most of the Greeks were not ethnically the same. There is a genetic study underway right now trying to compare remains of people from different regions of Greece and the Balkans to try and sort out who came from where, because we don’t even know where the Mycenaean Greeks came from or the Minoan. Well unless you believe that Knossos was Atlantis.

If not for Alexander then we never would have had the Hellenistic period or the Hellenistic kingdoms. The Macedonians united the Greeks, conquered the Illyrians and the regions of five civilizations in the mod and in doing so changed the course of history forever.

"I do not separate people, as do the narrow-minded, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is worse than a barbarian." Megas Alexandros

But that is just my opinion and I am quit biased toward the Macedonians since they are what I am writing my thesis on.

But now to game play… In my current game as the Romans I am up to 348 AD and there have been only three wars that didn’t involve slamming me. I have had up to six civs at war with me at once and nobody willing to come help. The other wars that have occurred; where the Greeks and Illyrians, Greeks and Lydian’s, and the Germanics and Gaul’s and nobody likes the Kolchers, but no one has attacked them even though they are relatively weak. Also Phoenicia, Egypt, Babylon, Carthage, Hittites, and Iberians are loved by and love everybody. This means I catch hell from everyone, every time I attack anybody. Usually within 4-5 turns I will have at least 2-3 other Civs declare war on me. Even when I attacked Gaul during their war with the Germanics, they made piece 2 turns later and 3 turns after that the Germanics attacked me. Even though I had two reserve stacks of 15 units sitting in position to move against anybody who might come after me. This all seems a bit odd to me, but I am a newbie to the mod.

 

[Tiger3416]

Uh oh. Both is completely useless. Believe me No, just kidding, both, ancient Greek and Latin are a strong support to learn other languages and even understand many things in history better.
Congratulations to your study choice. Wish I would have choosen this way because this was were my heart had been drawing me towards

Thanks...Yea its all fun and games until you have too spend the whole summer in northern Greece doing research everyday while your wife gets to splash around in the Aegean and shop all day. Credit Cards BAD, no let wife have them, trust me

But I am glad I chose this path, over being a doctor... parents should never try to push their children into professions.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

But I'm curious to know what, in your opinion, would be good "acting out history."

As I see it, there are two possible ways of playing this game; you can either give all Civs an even chance and just see what happens during the game, or you can play with historical settings meaning that for example Rome will be stronger than Kolchis. Personally I prefere the second alternative. I can then decide before a new game what level of challenge I'm up for, not only by selecting Prince, Monarch, etc but also by choosing Civ. I think Illyria should be a tough challenge, tougher than playing as the Greeks, since the Greeks historically was a much more powerful civilization.
Good "acting out history" on the map that we're currently playing would IMO mean the Phoenicians sending out settlers all over the Med. I would love to see the Greeks settling southern Italy and France and perhaps a colony on the Iberian peninsula, and the Carthaginians settling Sicily, northern Africa and Iberia. I also want Rome to be an ever growing threat.

 

[Pvblivs]

Good "acting out history" on the map that we're currently playing would IMO mean the Phoenicians sending out settlers all over the Med. I would love to see the Greeks settling southern Italy and France and perhaps a colony on the Iberian peninsula, and the Carthaginians settling Sicily, northern Africa and Iberia. I also want Rome to be an ever growing threat.

Me too!

 

[HÄI]

I would love to see the Greeks settling southern Italy and France and perhaps a colony on the Iberian peninsula

I've actually seen that happen in TAM when the Greek have discovered the world early on and were blocked by the Illyrians in their land expansions (as usually...). They founded cities in Sicily, Iberia, North Gaul and Britain. Though of course the Iberians do it as often... I'm playing Gaul now and the bastards are trying to take all free coastal provinces near my area...

 

[Seven05]

Avoiding "dogpile" wars is as easy as starting your wars earlier. If you haven't conquered substantial territory by 1000AD you're starting too late

When you start your wars earlier you develop a smaller number of enemies who hate you more. Now, when somebody trades with you (and they will) they are upsetting other civs by trading with their worst enemy. Alternatively you can make unreasonable demands to get a few civs mad at you if you're not in a position to go to war that early.

Remember, "Keep you friends close and your enemies closer." Ideally your immediate neightbors will not be your allies, they will be your enemies.

This won't give you huge world wars, it will only mean fewer civs will be willing to declare war on you. The politics of the game are like a a game of their own, if neglected they rarely work out in your favor. Don't be afraid to make enemies and make them hate you, that will give the world some polarity rather than being one big, happy family with you as the red haired step child.