 |
| |
|
|
Fiera
|
 |
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
Well, here's the new thread to talk about the Tartessos scn...
I know I should probably finish some other things  first, but this seems like an interesting idea, and we can all work it out together...
To make it clear, these are the tribes I was thinking of:
The filo-helenic side
Tartessians: capital Tartessos
Greeks: Massilia (or maybe Siracusa)
The Carthaginian side:
Carthaginians: Carthago
Etruscans: Caere?
The neutrals
(Independent) Phoenicians: Gadir
Iberians: ?
Celts: ?
As I explained in the other thread, the game should be playable as the Tartessians (main goal: survive) and as the Carthaginians (main goal: conquer the Western Mediterranean and destroy Tartessos, so that no one's able to find it today ). Thinking it twice, Greeks (and maybe Etruscans) could be interesting too...
The duration of the game would be from 586 b.C. (beginning of Tyro's siege by the Babylonians, thus making her colonies virtually independent) to 509 b.C. (year of the first Roman-Carthaginian treaty, which meant the beginning of the Carthaginian domain in the western Mediterranean). I guess two turns per year will be fine.
Now, as for technological research, cpoulos' proposal seems right to me. Here it is:
quote:
It can be done, and the way to go with tech is to let different civs research different tech trees. Tartessos foe example, should have nothing but future tech, but have everything it needs in the begining, and just try to stay alive.
|
But I disagree in the Tartessos bit, for I think that the Tartessians should be able to research something too. If not, their only way to win the scn is to become a militaristic civ, which, in case Tartessos existed, certainly wasn't.
quote:
The Greeks and Cathigians/phonecians (depending on which you prefer) could be searching for almost everything, but have a good defensive unit, so that they would be hard to wipe out, but they would have to research for offensive units, and so on.
|
Yes, that's a must. In fact, Vitrubius(sp?) wrote that a wise Carthaginian man invented the battering ram in the siege of Gades (Schulten believed it was the siege of Tartessos, but still). And it would be interesting, either as Carthago or as the Greeks, to develop new and more powerful kind of ships (from pentakontor to birreme, then trirreme, and then whatever, I don't quite remember everything I used to know about ancient ships).
That's all for the moment. Thanks to Jay Bee and Henrik for offering their help. 
I'm open to everything you wish to add, suggest, comment, etc. Let the discussion begin!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
How about the Tartessos player can only research peaceful things, like better farming, increased trade (upgrade the caravan to freight), better city defences such as walls, things to increase the number of shields (such as factories), that a city produces. Everything would be renamed of course. Maybe the Tartessos player can only get better combat units from events (such as breakthrough in metalergy, or something like that), or they could be player triggers on the map(It would encourage exploring, but only if the map was hidden). I assume we are all familiar with the geography of Spain and the Western med(Duh!), so hiding the map would not hamstring the players, but would hide any of the good (or bad) stuff on the map. Give me some time to think about it. I will think of more stuff.
------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-08-2001 07:00 PM
How about the Tartessos player can only research peaceful things, like better farming, increased trade (upgrade the caravan to freight), better city defences such as walls, things to increase the number of shields (such as factories), that a city produces. Everything would be renamed of course.
|
It seems that the Tartessians, though expert metal laborers and artisans, had poorly developed cities and buildings. Their cities were more like a hill with a bunch of huts in it... So obvious things to research by the Tartessians are Masonry (City walls), Construction (Aqueduct) and probably the ability to build an improved temple (Colosseum or Cathedral, renamed to High Temple or whatever). The better farming and increased trade things sound good to me. As for military, I believe they only had Bronze weapons. Maybe they could try to acquire Iron Working from the Greeks, but not research it by themselves.
quote:
they could be player triggers on the map(It would encourage exploring, but only if the map was hidden). I assume we are all familiar with the geography of Spain and the Western med(Duh!), so hiding the map would not hamstring the players, but would hide any of the good (or bad) stuff on the map.
|
Yes, the map will be definitely hiddenIt is supposed that the Greeks and the Carthagininas are exploring unknown lands. Coastal lines will be visible for them, at least as far west as Tartessos, but not the inner land.
quote:
Give me some time to think about it. I will think of more stuff.
|
Go ahead, please!
[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Waku on 03-08-2001 07:00 PM
I LOVE THE IDEA!!!
|
Yes, you know, once it's finished you and I may play (as Tartessos and the Greeks) a PBEM game against Jay Bee and Prometeus (as the evil Carthaginians and Etruscans, trying to destroy all trace of Tartessian legacy).
Everyone else is welcome to join in, of course...
quote:
Carthage and Gadir were two Tyrian colonies then I think every punic(=phoenician) colony (no matter if they were older than Carthage) should be under carthaginian control.
|
I explained this in the other thread. There isn't really evidence that, after the fall of Tyro, Carthago had to make war against the other Phoenician colonies (only some vague references, see the Vitrubio's quote above), but it's a fact that at the beginning of the 5th Century b.C., she was the egemonic power amongst them. I think it's more iteresting for the game if Carthago has to conquer the Phoenician cities before she can reach Tartessos.
quote:
There's a tribe that everyone forgets The Numidians, in fact they fought in the Carthaginian side in the 2nd Punic War but went over to the Roman side. Their cavalry was decisive at the battle of Zama.
|
Yes, but the scn will finish at 509 b.C, and the Numidians weren't really decisive yet. They may be depicted as Barbarians. Furthermore, same goes for the Celts, so I'll probably make them Barbs too. That way I may include the Ligurs (Genoa).
What do you think? Who is more important for the game?
[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Masis
|
 |
London
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Should the Phonecians be a different civ from the Kartadashians? They are the same people, perhaps you could have a Mediterranean map, with the city of Tyre being besieged by the Assyrians, whilst the new colony of Kartadash begins to prosper, the city could already include within it a palace, so that when Tyre falls, the civ will have a capital without building another one else where.
Certainly I think too that a native north African tribe should be included either Numidians or Libyans (same difference).
Egypt would be under Pharonic (Egyptian) rule based at the southern capital of Meroe so that when northen Egypt is invaded by the Assyrians, that civ too has a capital to go from and does not start building one else-where.
Of course a civ would play the role of the Assyrians.
The region of Hellas would be under Greek rule, with regional capitals at Athena, Syracusa and Massilia-it was the Greeks of Massilia that where detrimental to the people of Tartessos, they wanted to extend their influence as far down the south coast of Iberian penninsula as possible.
The rest of Italy would be under the dominace of the Etruscans represented by the Barbarian civ.
The Celts could be based at Tolouse-with hill-forts to represent their city style-the Tartessians would have the same style also.
And I agree with the idea of having the map hidden-deffinately!
So for civs there are...
1) Tartessians
2) Phonecians
3) Celts
4) Numidians/Libyans
5) Greeks
6) Egyptians
7) Assyrians
Effectively the scenario's objective would be for economic/strategic dominance of the Mediterranean basin.
What do you think of these proposals?
------------------
MRP
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Waku
|
 |
Cádiz, Spain
Nov 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Masis on 03-09-2001
So, that means either-
1) The history books are not correct
or
2) The facts of Tartessos are intermingled resulting in stories of well established Greek colonies in southern Hispania when according to the history books there were no Greek colonies even in southern France as early as 600 BC.
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, we know of the other civs and their cities, but we don't even know where Tartessos was-that is the problem.
It is understansable that the indigenous history of Hispania should be demonstrated as much as possible through Civ II, but the possibility that the kingdom of Tartessos having the city of Tarsos in Anatolia as a mother culture should be considered as a possibility, it appears at that time in history there was immigration on a large scal from the eastern Mediterranean to the west-why?
Surely there were other colonisers involved at this time, apart from the Greeks, Phonecians and Etruscans (from Urartu-east Anatolia.
Could the once rich city of Tarsos have been a base for colonisation of the west as well as bases like Atina, Tyre and western Anatolia.
------------------
MRP
|
[This message has been edited by Waku (edited March 09, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Masis
|
|
London
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
In response to Waku's interesting post...
That fact could rewrite the history books, tell me more about it.
The history books show no Greek colonies in the west Mediterranean until the 7th century BC. Does Waku's information correspond to this era?
Although I appreciate that this Forum is dedicated to Hispanic civilisation, we don't really know about the civilisation of Tartessos, even if it was called that in reality nor do we know precisely where it was. so making a scenario about that would be tricky indeed especially if it were to be exclusively based in the Iberian penninsula, where the information on other tribes in the penninsula is scarce as well.
The result of including a wider 'arena' of playing seems inevitable, the other civilisations really did effect the future of the civilisation of Tartessos especially the Phonecians and Greeks, the Phonecians were forced to look to the west as a homeland after the destructuion of their home by the Assyrians-so the Assyrians would need to be played. Why did the Greeks seek to colonise the Mediterranean as well, really for economic reasons, though barbarian invasion from the north into Hellas may as well be the reason.
Certainly the Summerian and later Assyrian ethnic cleansing against the Urartuans may have resulted in their immigration westwards across Anatolia (modern Turkey) and into Hella-leading to conflicts with the natives and their eventual colonisation of northern Italy to be known as the Etruscans.
They retained their skills in Metal work and Engineering that their slaves the Romans would later employ.
so, the inclusion of other civilisations into a future 'Tartessos' scenario is a healthy necessity in order to understand whilst playing, the knock-on-effect each civ has against the other.
Even in the scenario I am designing on the First Crusade, I include the civilisaiton of Fatimid Egypt, the Great Seljuk Sultanate (as wellas the Seljuk Sultanate of Romania or Rum), and even civilisations like the Georgians and Armenians-not just the Crusaders and the 'Byzantines'.
Including a wider arena of play doesnot jeopordise the wish to demonstrate the native civilisations of the Iberian Penninsula-especially when we move far back into history-it is a perfect option.
Jay Bee-I enjoyed the joke-but try not to delete this again.
------------------
MRP
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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 Andalucía 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
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
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
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2001 04:27
|