Hey Virote, I'm very excited to see that you are working on this again!
Hey! Glad to see you're still here!
Everything sounds fantastic ESPECIALLY the sea peoples (i plan on doing a PhD on them in about a year).
Remember, due to the 31 civ limit (and now for the daily cursing of the arbitrary imposition of limits), I may not be able to include them, its 50/50 at the moment, but I'd certainly like to!
First, I think you should do the golden fleece next, then heracles labours (of course after what you are doing now). i think that would provide the most variety for an early playtest with greek civs.
Indeed. That is my current preference
Next, I think for Rome vs Phrygia (for the trojans) simply make it tied to resources. Roman units like Triarii or hastati require "Roma" resource (of which there should be only one and it shouldn't appear until a later era). otherwise just make normal ionian/phrygian style units for them. i mean its tough to say what to do for an anatolian continuation since they simply werent there anymore in real life, but i would say there is no reason for them not to remain a trade/naval civ afterward. may even want to make them sorta evolve into pergammum if they dont relocate to italy.
The problem isn't so much as with Troy becoming either Phrygia or Rome, as I'm already using resources to separate them. The problem is with techs! I.e. how to get a tech tree which directs them in these directions, but isn't too balanced one way or the other (because the fact of the matter is, that they will undoubtedly be controlling both regions throughout the game!) There are plenty of Roman techs I could add for this era, but a lot of them would probably be
too Rome-centric for a civ which also includes the more "barbarous" Phrygians, if you get what I mean!
As for Mycenae, I would say give them some HN units (both sea and amphibious) at the end of the bronze age (they were probably sea peoples too) to help represent the chaos of the era. after that i would say give them units inferior to sparta, but i would put them in the pelopponesian league style of civ after the bronze age.
I don't really want to give them HN units; I would prefer them to be "victims" of the sea people, and especially the Doric peoples who superseded them (who are equally as valid candidates for being the sea peoples as far as I'm aware!)
Also, remember, the eras aren't representative of certain eras of ancient Greek history anymore, so much as representative of what I want the civs to experience. Thus, I'm not inclined to include Mycenae in the latter part of the Peloponnesian League-style tech tree primarily because I don't feel its relevant to their gameplay. They were based around the Aegean period until various points in the the Greek "dark ages", and thus that is what I want to represent.
Saying that, one thing I am certain of is that their troops will be weaker than, say, the Spartans in the 2nd era! (also, I may give them a wonder or small wonder to represent classical era "tourism" to the city of Mycenae which I've read about, although I'd like their second era to generally represent the eclipsing of their importance - which is probably why it's so hard!)
As for other Greek civs to add (from the previous page) i would say Syracuse would be an interesting choice and would fill in an area that otherwise wouldn't be inhabited. would be cool to use archimedes inventions, as well as see the poeni-syracusan conflicts or even the sicilian expedition.
Syracuse is already the capital of the Western Greeks! Splitting, say, Sicily off from the Italian Greek states (or even Syracuse off from Sicilian states such as Gela!), would be ideal, but I feel it would be impractical with (again!) that cursed civ limit!
Thus the choices I'm really looking at are the two I've outlined above (Delphi or a combined Doric/Caria/Sea People civ), unless another suggestion of a relevant civ who would truly have unique gameplay would also come into the fold! I don't think a separate Syracuse/Sicily would really differ too much from that of Magna Graecia, sadly. Of course, the Sicilian expedition is still very much possible! (Also, to make it more likely, I've actually included the Western Greeks in the same culture group as Sparta, whereas Athens belong to a different culture group, thereby making them slightly more dis-favourable to each other as far as the AI is concerned!)
I also want to just put it out there that I think for the scope of this scenario you should include a separate Egypt. I understand gameplay concerns with persia actually occupying this area, but I think you can make it work. I am ok with giving persia power in mesopotamia, assyria, and eastern turkey (as well as persia) but make them weak in the first era. make egypt VERY strong both culturally and militarily for the first era and then have their units SHARPLY decrease in quality so that they can easily be conquered by persia (who by then would already be in conflict with them). I just think it would be good to see a strong egypt in the bronze age that could expand in ways that would make Thutmose III and Amenhotep III proud. I have some ideas for what this civ's victory conditions could be. I think you could have another diplo wonder for them called "Amarna Diplomacy" that could go obsolete at the end of the bronze age, giving them a short time to use it and try to get an early diplo win. similarly they would be strong cultural contenders for a whole civ cultural victory, even after their military gets weak. wonders would be obvious (pyramids, sphinx, valley of the kings, luxor, deir el bahri, abu simbel) though i have more suggestions for them if we need. ANYWAY i think this would be a fun and unique civ to play and would provide competition for the hittites early on, and allow a fully developed land to fall to the persians eventually.
The thing is, Egypt's conquest by Persia wasn't too much of a concern to the Greeks (there were, of course, exceptions, especially with regards to the Athenian operation to help Egyptian rebellion, but overall, to the whole of the Hellas, Persian conquest of Egypt was not too much of a concern)
IMO, they'd only really be of interest to interacting with the Minoans, and the Hittites (and this scenario isn't too concerned with the non-Greek interactions with the Hittites!). Again, consider them a victim of the civ limit - I'd liked to have included them, but felt that any inclusion of them would be a detraction to the "Greek" relevance of the scenario. (And also they will be represented through a special resource which civs who'd interact with them can make use of!)
I mean, I also don't really want too much to get in the way of Persian expansion prior to their expansion into the Greek states of Western Anatolia - after all, what is does it matter to the Greeks
if Persia rules Cappadocia and the Levant and Egypt and Mesopotamia? Trade would be virtually unaffected in this period, and all giving the Persians and Hittites more rivals would do would be to make them less menacing - exactly what I wouldn't want! Like I said, it's not that I don't particularly think they could be good for the game, but I think they are, with limits in mind, outside of the scope of the scenario, and would only really be included to affect civs who aren't specifically Greek (which is something I've very much been trying to avoid!)
I think i had more to say, but I'll write it when i remember. Again, glad you are doing this again!
Thanks! I hope I've given some clarity onto some of my choices and problems!
