• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Virote's Ancient Greek Scenario

…such as your future addition of Tounisia?
 
I'm not sure how much work I'd need at the moment. I might do what I did "last time round", where I complete the gameplay for one group of civs (as much as is possible), then release it, so it comes out in "stages". This is a pretty good approach for the scenario, IMO, because it means any major problems affecting all or most civs, or any features which just plain don't work, can be ironed out before they become too entangled within the general framework of the mod, and thus tough to weed out...

At first, I'm working on the "semi-joint" Trojan War tech tree with Mycenae and Troy. However, I think I'm only going work on their first era for now (which is really their most important part, as this era, for them, is the era centred around the war itself). This is mostly due to a lack of ideas with what to do for their second era* (see spoiler).

So after I've done their first era, I'll work on another group of civs. I'm not decided on which group yet, and really not too fussed which group, although I'd like the group to a) have Greek civs in it (so, I don't want to do, say, the Barbarian group, or Persia's group quite yet), b) have more than 1 civ in the group, and c) be one of the groups which are more intended for "human" play. I'm leaning towards either the Herakles' Labours group (because although this "victory condition" had been intended in most of the previous iterations of this scenario, I'd never actually got round to designing it!), or the Golden Fleece group (because a lot of the work for these guys is already done! The same could be said for Sparta's group, but as in previous versions of this scenario I've tended to start with them as one of the first groups, I feel like a little deviation from my norm :))

This should allow about ~6 civs to play for an initial release?

Anyone have any burning desires for which group they'd like to play the most? :)

Spoiler * :
I can't think of any common techs or themes that they'd share. For Mycenae, I'd think the logical "progression" for the next era would be techs revolving around "The Odyssey", which I've mapped out somewhat, but I' not liking it too much. Another problem with this approach would be that the techs don't really lend themselves towards providing anything such as units and wonders, and as era 1 is their most "important" era, they already have most of the abilities possible, or at least the ones I'd like them to have. For Troy, I just plain don't know what direction to take them in. A mix between Phrygian and Roman is a must, but I'm not sure of how much of either I'd want. And I want to be very careful with improvement/wonder limits at the moment as well, which puts a corker on things...
 
Hey Virote, I'm very excited to see that you are working on this again! Everything sounds fantastic ESPECIALLY the sea peoples (i plan on doing a PhD on them in about a year).

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

I think i had more to say, but I'll write it when i remember. Again, glad you are doing this again!
 
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! :)
 
Hey Virote,

First of all, I respect all your choices! It is your mod/scenario after all and I know you produce quality work! Second, I think I understand where my different approaches came from. I had envisioned this going in an "Ancient Near East" way instead of Greece as the primary focus (maybe i should read the thread's title...) but in that light, your reasons for not including Egypt are totally valid to me. No problem.

In that case you had BETTER at least include the sea peoples! :) I will defend why I believe they are mostly greeks if that is necessary, but we can just leave it at "they had a HUGE impact on greece and the rest of the near east" as enough.

I didnt realize there was a western greek civ. glad you have that covered!

My suggestion for the Rome/Phrygia problem is to simply make the techs generic. Horseback riding, chariotry, iron working, etc. are techs that could work for both. but for more specific techs I think you should just make them a mix of greek and barbarian early on to represent the phrygians (and at this point italy wasnt really part of the picture anyway, so they can use barbarous units in italy too... i wont mind) and then a shift to more roman techs later. we just have to make persia a BEAST to conquer phrygia with regularity.

what do you think you are gonna do in terms of eras? i think that would make some of these problems easier to solve.
 
The way eras currently work, is that every civ currently gets two eras, and the eras are going to "focus" on something, or represent a change of somesorts, so, say, the first era of the Peloponnesian League tech tree would be the states in it emerging from the Dark Ages and establishing themselves. The second era will be more based around the Peloponnesian War.

I don't want to use too many generic techs for anyone, really, although I am well aware that I may need to do so...
 
Right, guys, next question.

As I work on the first era of the Trojan War tech tree, I had the idea of maybe including the Hittites in it (in era 2, maybe they go the Persian way, or somesuch). This would require a little re-jigging, but not too much.

Right now, the tech tree is split between techs available to both, Trojan techs (purple) and Mycenaean techs (navy blue):
TrojanWarTechTree-Default.png


If I were to add the Hittites, their techs would be the brown ones, and an extra group of techs would be available to both Troy and Hatti (the greenish ones):
TrojanWarTechTree-Hittites.png

One additional tech would be added available to all (Masonry). Troy would have 27 techs in this era, and Mycenae and Hatti would both have 26.

This would give Hatti a vested interest in going Westwards earlier on, so it could trade techs with Troy (and possibly Mycenae), and less of an interest in maintaining friendly relations with an early Persia. There would also be a lot of shared improvements and stuff, but with room to diverge; and thus Hatti's gameplay can be relatively different. One problem could be that Hatti could research all the early techs much quicker than the other civs, due to the fact that they're made for early rapid expansion, but I could give them disadvantages, too (rate cap on government, no citizens who generate science, no science-generating improvements, other financial restraints, etc.) to make up for it.

Of course, if they were to go in the same group as Persia, they'd avoid their size being such an advantage, and it wouldn't really have much difference in the types of improvements/wonders and such they can build, but it would give them less of a reason to maintain good relations with Persia in the early eras. Also, I guess it would mean that I could make Persia's early eras focus on the Medes and Cyrus, as a precursor for the second era, which would revolve around Darius onwards?

Thoughts?
 
How would that couple in with the Hittite v. Egypt wars for the control of Palestine, Cele-Syria and the rest of the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea?
 
About as much as it would otherwise, since none of those civs are actual civs in this scenario, but represented by other means.

EDIT: However, one thing I was thinking, is that Hatti could have a resource, found in the Levant and Egypt, which would produce a "grain" unit, which must be taken to somewhere where it can be upgraded into a fighting unit
 
But Hatti collapsed centuries before Persia even existed as such!! How are you going to resolve such a serious incompatibility?

A resource taken to somwehere and upgraded to a unit… I assume you want some form of advanced auto-production?
 
But Hatti collapsed centuries before Persia even existed as such!! How are you going to resolve such a serious incompatibility?

From my update on the previous page:
These are 2 eras long, based on a theme I wanted for the civs, with some variations amongst the civs in them. This means that Mycenaean units will be roaming around with late Classical units. This may seem odd, but in a scenario where you can play as both the Bosporan Kingdom and Minoan Crete, both at the same time, it isn't so absurd.

So, much like in the epic game, where you can have America and the Netherlands running around with the Zulus and Carthage, in this scenario, of more limited scope, you can have civs such as Hatti and Persia coexisting. Remember: This scenario is Greek-centric, not Hittite or Persian centric; I can't make a civ spawn or crumble at a certain date due to lack of source code; and I only have 31 civs to use.

Hatti and Persia were both important enough during this time frame for these Greek states to warrant a slot, IMO, and neither could really be represented in another way.

A resource taken to somwehere and upgraded to a unit… I assume you want some form of advanced auto-production?
Indeed, that's the plan :king:
 
:bump:

After my Christmas break and the ensuing break from civ, I have resumed work on this scenario!

By "resumed work", I don't mean I've done anything new since my hiatus, but plans are being made, and I'm certainly in the mood for the scenario!

With just the Mycenae/Troy/(Hittite) tech tree alone, there is going to be a whole slew of new tech icons available, as I was working on making 'em before the break. Just got to try to find out where to start with getting the remainder of them...

Hatti is still very much on the table to be in the same general tech grouping as Mycenae/Troy, although their size is something of an issue - though I'm certainly thinking about perhaps making it so that the improvements/wonders available to them increase pollution (maybe they start with a wonder which pre-places a pollution-spawning improvement in every city?), representing the food problems which were the most constant plague to the empire...
 
Top Bottom