"Antiquity: Total War" - going back even FURTHER (thoughts?)

[Comrade Alexeo]

I'm not entirely sure why, but for some reason I've always had the thought in the back of my mind of a game that doesn't make you fight 60 years ago or 600 year ago, but 6,000 years ago.

Maybe its because of the "Old Kingdom" style of the Egyptians in vanilla RTW. Maybe its because I read too much military history. Maybe I should just blame Troy: Total War

The idea of an "Assyria: Total War" or even a "Sumer: Total War" ("Civilization: Total War" is sexy but might cause some lawsuits )is appealing to me, and I guess I want to see if you guys think there's any merit to this as well.


Some of my thoughts:

1) There's a certain limit to how far back you can go to have a reasonably playable game. We can't do a "Sumer: Total War" because you'd only be fighting scattered peasant rabble... Clearly, when you're the first and only civilization, things can get pretty lonely In order to have something to actually do, you need a starting point... perhaps the rise of Sargon the Great, in 2334 BCE? Going until, vaguely the fall of Assyria in 609 BCE?

2) I'm hardly an expert going back this far, but civilizations could perhaps include...
-Sumer
-Akkadia
-Babylonia
-Elam
-Hurrians
-Hittites
-Egypt
-Urartu
-Mycenae
-Greeks?
-Medes?
-Persians?

Somebody who knows more... enlighten me, please?

3) Armies are more and less advanced than you think they are.
-The Sumerians wore copper helmets (which, while weaker than bronze, is better than nothing) and heavy cloaks, which were sometimes studded with metal (which is, again, not great but better than nothing). It was actually the Egyptians who were lax in armoring their soldiers.

-Weapons of the period included spears, axes, and slings. There were also bows, but only simple ones until about 1500 BCE.

-Generally, weapons were made of iron (stone persisted in Egypt though) because iron is hard, armour was made of copper or bronze because they are lighter and can be cold-cast, and shields were wood and leather affairs. This stuff obviously evolved though.

-Big, clunky, two- and four-wheeled warcarts drawn by asses were used as early as the Sumerians, but they were too slow for combat - they were used for leaders. The kind of chariots we're more familiar with show up around 2000 BCE, and I've read that they were brought in by steppe tribes living on the fringes of civilization - kinda like early barbarian hordes. Chariots were extremely powerful but also extremely expensive weapons of war when they arrived.

-It was the Assyrians who evolved cavalry, but I'm not sure at what point they did so (though it was definitely after chariots, counter-intuitive as that seems) - that's what research is for ! As I recall from John Keegan's A History of Warfare, early cavalry was basically "charioteering without the chariot"; that is to say, they were more skirmishers than shock troops (though they may have had thrusting spears), and a major reason for their success was simply that getting horses AND chariots is much more expensive then just getting horses.

-There was some measure of siege warfare, as there are already stone walls by this time. The trick is making assaults - there are no catapults for a long time to come, and battering rams don't show up until 1900 BCE. Ladders, sapping, or simple starvation are the way to go.

-Warfare, especially early on when it was just infantry, did often consist of mobs of men fighting in no discernably organized fashion. However, Sargon's men did march in a proto-phalanx, and the concepts of flanking and envelopment were already long established - after all, dealing with herds of men is surely little different than dealing with a herd of cows or sheep! (Indeed, it has been suggested that the first warriors proper were not hunter-gatherer's, as we might expect - because thats really more skirmishing - but shepherds and the like, because they were used to up-close slaughter and dealing with masses. Anyway.)


I'm not sure how it can all be done in a realistic and historic yet entertaining and intriguing fashion, or even if it can be done. "Antiquity: Total War" (I'm open to better suggestions than that title) could either be excruciatingly slow and boring and repetitive ("Yay! More chaotic mobs beating each other up!")... or thought-provoking and amusing in a "Hey look at that" sort of way ("Rams? I can build RAMS? DEAR GOD YES! Wait...")

How do you assault a fortified city with nothing better than ladders and some elbow grease? How do you survive in battle wearing little bronze studs on a cloak instead of lorica segmentata? How the bloody hell do you flank without cavalry?


Meritous idea? Or idea without merit?

[beauchamp]

I would like to see Axumites, Jews, Sa'baeans, Hittites, Philisitinians and others too!

[Comrade Alexeo]

Yes, I think it'd be interesting to have the two Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah... perhaps you could reunite them

Is there anyone interested in working on this mod? If yea, then speak now so this can become announced and official and so on.

And if nay... well, I'll just go cry in a corner...

[Gurkhal]

What factions could be included really depends upon what time you want to set it in.

-Sumer
-Akkadia
-Babylonia
-Elam
-Hurrians
-Hittites
-Egypt
-Urartu
-Mycenae
-Greeks?
-Medes?
-Persians?

Many of these did not exist at the same time so perhaps the timefram would be the first thing to decide along with what conflict/area that would be the centre.

For help with the mod I would be happy to help as a researcher and general supporter.

[redhen]

Ever since RTW came out I've been hoping someone would make an Assyria:Total War mod.

There've been several threads started on it here and on the TWcenter and totalwar.com boards. In fact there's a new thread at the .com site now.

These never seem to get off the ground though, it's a shame.

What more could you want? Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mycaneans, why it sounds just like Age of Empires!

Obviously there's a limit on far far you can go back, who wants to play Pre-Indo-European: Total War? The Funnelbeaker empire against the Western Linear Pottery empire? LOL

I have Chariots of War somewhere on my hard drive, so if you need names for leaders I've got a hundred of them.

Good luck on this.

Assyria was the OEE ! (original evil empire)

[snevets]

The one in that list that definately doesn't belong is Persia, way out of the timeframe.

[Comrade Alexeo]

The one in that list that definately doesn't belong is Persia, way out of the timeframe.

Hmmmm... the reason I included Persia was because one source said that it overthrew Assyria, though it looks like that that was actually done by the Medes. But on the other hand, there WAS a slight overlap in existence according to one source; Persia came about in 648, and Assyria collapsed in 609. Actually, the Assyrians were conquered by the Babylonians who were then conquered by the Persians, but we'll probably stop just with the fall of Assyria.



I've been struggling with that myself Gurkal. A vague timeline of sorts follows.

Start of game, 2334
-Sargon the Great becomes leader of Akkad. He controls one city, Akkad (which he apparently founded), which is somewhere between the cities of Sippar and Kish on the left bank of the Euphrates. Historically, he ends up usurping most of the Sumerians with his empire, the Akkadian.

-Egypt is here by this point, and united. The Great Pyramids have also already been built. We're in the second-to-last year of the rule of Teti. Egypt is at a crossroads in its history; while still nominally intact, the great building projects of recent times have drained the country and its resources to its limits. Historically, a series of weak pharoahs and the stop of Nile flooding in 2100 causes what we know as the Old Kingdom to collapse.

-Babylonia is also here (Sargon mentions it), but as of yet lacks any real power. Historically, the First Dynasty arrives in 1959 with Suum-Abuum. Hammurabi ends up usurping both Sumer AND Akkad, but he only shows up on 1792.

-Another kingdom here is the Huurian, who were a people from the Caucasus and ended up in the northern part of Mesopotamia. They only become an organized state in 2250, when the Akkadian Empire fell after constant warring with the tribes of Armen.

Arrival of the Hittites, 1750

-The Hittites had established their kingdom in Hattusa in central Anatolia sometime around 2000, and became the Hittites proper around 1750.

-The Kassites themselves date from 1749. They were a mountain tribe of sorts, and are of interest mostly because when Babylon was sacked by the Hittites in 1595, it was given to the Kassites.

Arrival and Fall of the Assyrians, 1365-609
-Ashur-uBallit I was the first new Assyrian king after he liberated Ashur from the control of the Mittani. The city of Ashur existed beforehand - actually, it was conquered by Hammurabi - but until now has lacked any real indepence. Assyria was a very militaristic state, which meant that it could wield a lot of power relative to its neighbors but was vulnerable a great defeat could cause the loss of a lot of manpower. Historically, when the Hittites collapse in 1160, the Assyrians will duke it out with the Babylonians for control of the remnants, and come out with the upper hand. After the death of Tiglath-Pileser I in 1076, Assyria was led by weak rulers and constantly fighting with Urartu, and her power declined until the arrival of Adad-Nirari II in 911. Assyria and Urartu continue fighting for centuries, and Assyria begins to break apart in 627, when Ashurbanipal died. Facing pressure from the Scythians and Medes, and a resurgent Babylon that managed to regain its independence, Assyrian power dwindled despite a last-ditch alliance with Egypt. Eventually it collapsed altogether in 609.

-Urartu was never as strong as Assyria, but managed to keep Assyria out of Turkey for quite a long time. Historically, they'll be overwhelmed by the Scythians and the Medes in 612, but they'll live on as a people when they merge with the Armenians.

-The Phoenicians had by now established a trading empire across the Mediterranean, although their indepent presence in the Middle East appears to have been limited to Tyre, which proved impossible to assault by the Assyrians.

-The Scythians and the Medes, horse peoples from the steppes, were at this point in history not entirely organized, but generally just went around raping and pillaging as they saw fit. The Medes historically ended up establishing themselves in Iran in 701, and stubbornly persisted against Assyrian power because of their alliances with the Scythians. Historically, the Medes would end up eliminating the last vestiges of Assyrian power when they conquered Urartu and Nineveh in 612, and finally Carrhae in 609.

-After pressure from the marauding Philistines, one of the "Sea Peoples" who had come over from Greece during the 12th Century and established small communities in Canaan, the Kingdom of Israel was founded in 1025 by Jacob's children, with the first king being Saul. The kingdom will remain united until the death of Solomon in 922, when the disputes over succession between Solomon and his elder half-brother Adonijah finally come to a head and cause Israel to break up into the Kingdom of Israel, in the north, and the Kingdom of Judah, in the south. Histrocially, the two kingdoms fought with each other for some 60 years, generally cooperated for the next 80, and Israel was overthrown in 722 by Assyria and its Nine Tribes were scattered. Judah, consisting of the tribes of Simeon, Benjamin, and Judah, managed to outlast the Assyrians themselves, who were conquered by Babylon. They were eventually conquered by the Babylonians in 586, and the Babylonians were in turn conquered by the Persians in 539.



The question is, though, would it be better to have:

1) A single uber-campaign with emergent factions
2) Several smaller "provincial campaigns," one for each given time period
3) Some other combination


Looks like this may be getting enough interest to justify making this official and getting forums! Yay!

[Avicenna]

Interesting idea, but there isn't much in the way of historical texts from that age, is there? At least not enough to provide an accurate depiction of all factions.

Also, you might want to edit out the iron bit, as I don't think it was the iron age just yet. Troy was only about 3000 years before now, but they did not have iron weapons.

BTW, Mycenae are the Greeks. But of the era described by Homer in the Iliad and Odyssey, not 6000 years ago. I think 6000 years ago there wasn't civilisation. At your proposed starting date of around late 3rd millenium BC, I think it was the Minoans who were dominant in the Balkans, not the Myceneans. I might be wrong, though.

[Comrade Alexeo]

Interesting idea, but there isn't much in the way of historical texts from that age, is there? At least not enough to provide an accurate depiction of all factions.

Also, you might want to edit out the iron bit, as I don't think it was the iron age just yet. Troy was only about 3000 years before now, but they did not have iron weapons.

BTW, Mycenae are the Greeks. But of the era described by Homer in the Iliad and Odyssey, not 6000 years ago. I think 6000 years ago there wasn't civilisation. At your proposed starting date of around late 3rd millenium BC, I think it was the Minoans who were dominant in the Balkans, not the Myceneans. I might be wrong, though.

That's the tricky part. We have to rely a lot on things like the Standard of Ur for Sumerian uniform and so on, and even then details like colors are not given.

I'm pretty sure that iron use was around by this time, but the problem was that iron cannot be cold-cast; to make iron into a shape, you have to smelt it, and that kind of technology was either nonexistant or very touch-and-go at this point. You could get sometimes get away with it for something simple like a spearhead or a relatively benign dagger, but usually copper or, better yet, bronze (copper + tin) was used, both of which are easier to shape. The problem with bronze wasn't so much a lack of strength, but the fact that tin is very rare, and when they figured out iron, they used that because iron is far more common - once you figure out how to mine it. The other reason it was used rarely early on was because at first they could only find iron from scattered metorites, and at one point iron was actually worth more than gold.

In fact, the Sumerians occasionally used silver and even gold for spear tips and helmets (obviously not for the lay-soldier...), though the latter's softness especially begs the question of their actual utility, although admittedly they may have been useful early on, when clubs and maces were still popular weapons, in absorbing the shock.


As for including Troy itself at some point, I'm reluctant to consider it because 1) in the grand scheme of things, Troy wasn't that important and 2) I don't want to draw any attention from what the Troy: Total War team has accomplished.


MINOS! THAT'S what I was thinking of! Thank you!

[Gurkhal]

I would, as one suggest that the super-large campaign isn't made. Better than to focus one of the smaller campaigns. Both for more details and that less research and possibly work before a finished mod is clear will be required.

Although there isn't as much information regarding that age's armies as say the Roman period of time there is suprisingly much about the larger factions. While smaller ones might not have as much one can usually know what weapons and types of unites were used in the area and piece together a good army list. Although possibly with demi-fantasy unites.

The Hitties were to my knowledge the first ones to use iron in greater quantity, most famously against the Egyptians and Ramses II in the Battle of Khadesh.

[Comrade Alexeo]

Yes, it'll probably be best to have separate campaigns. Oddly enough, they may very well fit into the timeline sections I had above

Consider:


Campaign 1:

This is a campaign much like that in Alexander: Total War. Starting in 2334, you must lead Sargon, the new king of Akkad, and forge an empire from a single city to the entire Middle East, from Mesopotamia to Anatolia. But to do that, you must get through the Sumerians, who, though declining, are still in control of much of Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, the city of Babylon is just as eager to assert its independence, and to the south, Egypt is watching...

...can you forge the Akkadian Empire as created by Sargon the Great in but 55 years?


Campaign B:

This is also a simple campaign in theory: starting around 1290, leading the Neshites (Hittites), you must destroy Egypt... or, leading Egypt, you must destroy the Neshites. In practice, this may not be so easy, as both nations are the superpowers of their day. Leading the Neshites, you have the advantage of an ally in the Kassites, who control much of Mesopotamia - but the Egyptians are vastly wealthier than either other state combined. Historically, the two nations signed a peace in 1258...

...will you be so cowardly?


Campaign D:

This is a more "typical" campaign. It is 1365 BCE, and the Mitanni have just been thrown out of Ashur by the new king, Ashur-uBallit I. Will you lead his people, the Assyrians, and create an empire that historically lasted for over 600 years? Will you try and lead the crumbling Hittites back to greatness? Or will you seize their remnants as the Babylonians, or Urartu? But the horsemen of Scythia and the Medes may block your path, and the wandering Israelites may very well surprise all...

...have you the strength to accomplish all this before 609?




One of the main reasons civilizations will have to be split up is not only because of disparate timelines, but also by extension the weapons technologies available. The first campaign will feature poorly armored infantry armed with but copper spears, axes, maces, and simple bows - and not much else. A lucky few royals may have sickle-swords and chariots - but big, clunky jobs, driven by onagers who will either sprint at breakneck speed or refuse to even plod (is it actually possible to have units simply refuse to follow orders?). Cities with stone walls may prove so time-consuming to assault that you'd be better off ignoring them. Warfare here is mostly a matter of forcing the enemy to withdraw before you take too many losses of your own - conserving your manpower is a must.

On the other land, the later civilizations will have plate armor, bronze weapons, and (albeit enormously expensive) charioteers with composite bows. The Assyrians will even introduce the revolutionary idea of cavalry. This allows vastly greater flexibility in the warring of this time - death comes and goes much easier now.

[Gurkhal]

Looks good to me. You're planning to start with campaign A?

[Comrade Alexeo]

In terms of overall development? Yeah, we'll start with the Sargon campaign because 1) it's arguably the most iconic of the campaigns for the mod's vision and 2) it'll also probably (knock on wood) be the easiest to create.

But if someone pops in and says "I've got this great source for the Hittites, should I make some soldiers?" then I'd be happy to oblige them. It may seem haphazard, but I don't want to risk losing skilled modders by being too strict. Ultimately, I think a relaxed atmosphere - so long as there's overall progress - will prove better in the long run.

Hell, I've even been fiddling around and making some Assyrian soldiers, which don't really come until the third phase, because 1) I was inspired 2) I had a fairly good source to show me some ideas and 3) because my limited skills let me at least make them. In the meantime, I've asked someone else who actually knows what they're doing to work on a more complicated unit or two which will be used earlier on. My net gain of 2 or 3 units is better than just 1 unit in the same time, and there was little to no stress surrounding it

Sometime later this week, once there are some things to present (and show off ), I'll "officially" announce the mod.


By the way, earlier you said you'd like to help out with research. Do you have any specific area of expertise, or good sources? I've figured out rough outlines of sides just from googling and from some books I have (i.e., Sumerians wore proto-armor while Egyptians wore none, Hittite chariots were heavier but Egypt's were faster, and Assyrians were the first to use horse-cavalry to any effect), but details are sketchy at best ("Babylon had spearmen") and nonexistant at worst, and while these were admittedly simpler times, there needs to be some variety or it just won't be very engaging... so I'll use all the I can get!

[Gurkhal]

I can't really say that I have a real expertise, as in proffesor or the like. However I do have some rather good info about religion and intresst in it some good sources for general Sumer history. But mostly religion.

However I do belive I can dig up some info about most things Sumer with some time.

[Comrade Alexeo]

[Gurkhal]

[Comrade Alexeo]

This isn't dead, by the way, I'm just sorting some things out...