Tartessos: help me (us) build a fun scn...

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-12-2001 10:33 AM Yes, please send it to me. My e-mail is in my profile.

E-mail sent.

Anyone else interested in taking a look at it? I've sent it to Jay Bee too, hopefully he'll be able to post it here...

[Chris 62]

Yes, please send it to me. My e-mail is in my profile. I'm not sure if double flagging will be a problem or not. Only testing will tell(unless of course, one of our many fine designers already knows! ). The movement rate thing has bothered me since Civ-1, but I overlooked it because the game is so much fun!

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-12-2001 02:26 AM The page doesn't seem to be available.

Yes, it's probably a Geocities problem... If you're interested, I shall send you the image via e-mail. I will send it to Jay Bee as well, so he can post it here for everybody to take a look at it.

quote: About ship movement, all ships should be submarined flagged. Anciet warships were not a factor in land warfare, as far as bombardment goes. They fought each other, and warships at least, hugged coastlines(altough there is growing prof that this might not be the case). Sub flagged, they can only fight each other, so a high movement factor is quite alright.

Yes, the sub flag idea sounds great to me... Will it work together with the trirreme flag on, however?

quote: Movement factors have always been off in civ-2. They are way to low, but they are tied into the combat factor, so this causes problems. There is also a perception problem. So many are used to anciet unit=1 movement factor, that they complane that units act like 'anciet panzer divions' in some scenarios. I reject this argument from an historical perspective, since I know the relation of space/time vis-a-vis the game map should be historical march time per turn=should equal movement factor, not notions that units are 'slow'.

Yes, that's what I always thought too. In scenarios, it annoys me when it takes you 20 years to do what Hannibal was able to do in less than a year...

[Prometeus]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-12-2001 02:26 AM Anciet warships were not a factor in land warfare, as far as bombardment goes...

until hellenistic ages ( go Rhodos go!!! ). Tartessos was before. You are right, one score point to you. Good hint!!!

[Chris 62]

The page doesn't seem to be available. About ship movement, all ships should be submarined flagged. Anciet warships were not a factor in land warfare, as far as bombardment goes. They fought each other, and warships at least, hugged coastlines(altough there is growing prof that this might not be the case). Sub flagged, they can only fight each other, so a high movement factor is quite alright. Movement factors have always been off in civ-2. They are way to low, but they are tied into the combat factor, so this causes problems. There is also a perception problem. So many are used to anciet unit=1 movement factor, that they complane that units act like 'anciet panzer divions' in some scenarios. I reject this argument from an historical perspective, since I know the relation of space/time vis-a-vis the game map should be historical march time per turn=should equal movement factor, not notions that units are 'slow'.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Prometeus on 03-11-2001 04:01 AM My celtic collection on my website is at your orders, king fiera the first...

It will be my pleasure, Re Prometeus!

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-10-2001 07:07 PM The map to use is already made. Jay Bee's one for Al-Andulas. It has all of Spain, enough of North Africa for Carthage, enough of Italy for the Etruscans. I would just cut out Southern France, and the land route to northern Spain, as that is for the second Punic War. The med can be a little compressed so that a larger Spain is possible. A map of only Southern Spain means that trade will be unimportant(No two continent bonus), as almost all of it would be over land. That is also another reason for no land route to Italy.

OK, take a look at this. It's the Al-Andalus map slightly modified by me. However, it's a very large map (75x94), so that means that Carthago is something like 65 squares far away from Tartessos... Ships with high movement rate will be a must...

Edit: I'm very sorry, but I can't seem to post the map picture...
[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 12, 2001).]

[Prometeus]

My celtic collection on my website is at your orders, king fiera the first...

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 03-10-2001 02:41 PM My original idea (and I believe cpoulos seems to support it too): a medium scope. A western Med map, maybe with no need to include all Italy, just the northern part. It should include Carthago at least, for a very important part of the scn could be the development of Carthage, from a tiny Tyrian colony, to an important commercial and militar strength in the Western Med. That way you have a sense of empire building in the game. Not just conquest: growth, sea faring, trade, etc. Same would go for the Massalian Greeks.

I sure do support it, Fiera. The map to use is already made. Jay Bee's one for Al-Andulas. It has all of Spain, enough of North Africa for Carthage, enough of Italy for the Etruscans. I would just cut out Southern France, and the land route to northern Spain, as that is for the second Punic War. The med can be a little compressed so that a larger Spain is possible. A map of only Southern Spain means that trade will be unimportant(No two continent bonus), as almost all of it would be over land. That is also another reason for no land route to Italy. Maybe the Celts and Iberians map would be better, with just a enough of italy for a city or two added. The Celts could go either way, maybe a tribe of them would be good, but make them primative.



------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Fiera]

Sorry for doing this again. I don't know how to rply to separate posts any other way...

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-09-2001 03:00 AM I sincerely do not understand what Etruscans, Numidians... have to do with Tartessos.

Well, Etruscans are supposed to be the historical allies of Cathaginians against the Greeks in the western Med. In fact, they fought together with the Carthaginian ships at the battle of Alalia. But we could always make them just one civ, or rather depict Etruscan help via events.

quote: Also I think the Carthaginians should be called Phoenicians.

Yeah, that party is getting stronger , so I'm thinking about a logical way to force Carthago to make war with other Phoenician cities... maybe using kIndal's trick, including a Tartessian unit in Gadir, Malaka, Sexi, etc?

quote: Also I the limits of the scen do not seem very logical to me....

I hope that my above post have made this point clearer to you... I am looking forward to discuss it however...

quote: PS. You can't leave the Celts aside Tartessos was 'supposed' to trade with them via the Silver Trail.

I too think that they should be in (maybe together with the Iberian tribes?).

[Fiera]

Sorry for my third post in a row. I will now reply to less general suggestions:

quote: Originally posted by Masis on 03-08-2001 10:09 PM Minor addition to last post-on the position of the Greeks in the Mediterranean... Just looked at a history book, a page that illustrates the Med at the time of 670 BC, shows Tartessos civ, but shows that the Greek colony of Massilia is yet to be founded

Yes, but I suggested 586 bC as starting point, so we shouldn't bother about that... At that time Massilia was already a well developed colony, and had influence over Alalia (in Corsica) and the colonies in the Eastern/South eastern coast of Spain (Pyrené, Emporion, Hemeroskopeion and probably Mainaké too...

[Fiera]

Now, to what Masis and the others posted about the map.

Masis idea: a Mediterranean map, including the Assyrians and Egyptians, etc.

According to what I posted above about the intention of the scn, that seems to get out of the scope. If the scn is about trade, and exploring of the Western Mediterranean, I believe that Assyrians and Egyptians are out of the scope. Neither do we need to include Greece and Asia Minor, for their impact in the game could easily
be depicted via events (units that come in help of the Greek colonies from the mother cities, some gold once in a while, etc).

Jay Bee/kIndal idea: an AndalucÃa or southern Spain map.

It's an interesting suggestion, but, then again, we would hardly make an exploration scn with those premises. It would be more like a military campaign (the Carthaginians against the Tartessians, very much in the like of Jay Bee's "Granada".

I don't even think there was a long land campaign, it seems that the Carthaginians didn't go very deep in Hispania during the VI Century b.C., so a somewhat wider scope would be finer: I don't see why we shouldn't include such historical events as the Battle of Alalia (535 b.C) which Schulten considers decissive for the fall of Tartessos, since it wiped out Greek naval presence in the Western Mediterranean for some years.

My original idea (and I believe cpoulos seems to support it too): a medium scope.

A western Med map, maybe with no need to include all Italy, just the northern part. It should include Carthago at least, for a very important part of the scn could be the development of Carthage, from a tiny Tyrian colony, to an important commercial and militar strength in the Western Med. That way you have a sense of empire building in the game. Not just conquest: growth, sea faring, trade, etc. Same would go for the Massalian Greeks.

So what do you all think about this? Does anyone think that we should try make three separate scns?
[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 10, 2001).]

[Fiera]

Well, lots of interesting things to reply to...

First off, Masis:

quote: This scenario will pose a problem-either we forget about history and go about making a Hispania only scenario with Tartessos as the main player or we flick through some books and aim at a historical scenario

Please bear in mind that my intention with this scn was to follow closely Adolf Schulten's theories about Tartessos. There's a big (very big) controversy about his ideas, but I don't think this is the place to discuss it. So this means that I for one intend to leave "academical" history aside this scn, just for the sake of fun and proving how the Tartessos that Schulten "imagined" and explained was.

That doesn't mean that somebody else may try a different approach to the Tartessos thing. Furthermore, it would be very interesting if we designed two or three different scenarios, each with its own scope and goal. But I will go with the Schulten's Tartessos anyway.

[Waku]

quote: Originally posted by Masis on 03-09-2001 09:18 PM The history books show no Greek colonies in the west Mediterranean until the 7th century BC. Does Waku's information correspond to this era?

I wasn't my intention to start a dialectical war with my post about Mainake, but one of the sources to write anything(scns included) about Tartessos must be the Ora Maritima by Avienus (no matter if it really existed or not) , unfortunately I haven't found an english translation yet( ):

Tartessiorum iuris illic insula antistat urbem, Noctilucae ab incolis
sacrata pridem. in insula stagnum quoque tutusque portus. oppidum Menace super. http://geocities.com/Athens/Forum/69...ienus_ora.html

La ciudad de Tartesos está unida por un camino de cuatro dÃas con la región del Tajo o el Sado, y por otro de cinco dÃas con Mainake, donde los ricos tartesios poseÃan una isla consagrada por sus habitantes a Noctiluca. http://www.unav.edu/hAntigua/practicas/ora.html

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Masis on 03-09-2001 09:18 PM Jay Bee-I enjoyed the joke-but try not to delete this again.