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

**Gurkhal** · 06-26-2006, 08:45

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** · 06-28-2006, 04:48

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** · 06-28-2006, 10:28

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

**Comrade Alexeo** · 07-01-2006, 15:38

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** · 07-01-2006, 22:29

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.