Poll: Is this mod a good idea?

Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

  1. #1
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    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 years ago, but 6,000 years ago....

    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
    -Assyria
    -Babylonia
    -Elam
    -Hurrians
    -Hittites
    -Egypt
    -Urartu
    -Mycenae
    -Minos
    -Israel
    -Judah
    -Medes?



    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. It 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?
    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
    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.

    Way back in June I proposed an idea for a mod then called "Antiquity: Total War", then intended for RTW. It generated some interest, and I made some proof-of-concept units, but it basically faded away...

    Now I'm looking at M2TW, with its individual units, religion, and city/fortress stuff, and wondering about this again because the concept doesn't appear to have cropped up. While my personal expertise is with Rome, there's already several mods based around that - and since I've been getting more interested in the ancient world I've been learning more about it, and it's only fascinated me more...

    I'm therefore throwing this concept out there to see what people think of it, but for M2TW, and now called Ama-gi: Total War - "ama-gi" being the Sumerian word for "freedom", which I think is a particularly apt name.

    I clicked the "post a poll" but there's nothing for me to fill in, so if I don't figure out please respond with the following "byline" before you give the rest of your input:

    Yes, it is a good idea, and I would like to help
    Yes, it is a good idea, but I am unable to help
    No, it is a bad idea


    Both from my initial research "blitz" and from accumulated researching since I have found several very good sources on this period - with both economic AND military info - making this mod rather more realistic. I've also come up with some outlines of possible troop types for some of the factions.

    Thanks for your constructive input!
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  2. #2

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Yes, it is a good idea, and I would like to help

    The only problem is that you would have a very long game but the idea of going far back into history is unique and could force us to use some refreshing strategies - only make sure you aren't too close to the history that you end up with virtually no visual greatness.
    Leader of The Machiavellian Syndicate - A open community for modders and fans to talk about Total War and Oblivion.

  3. #3
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Hmm...

    Maculio, you offered to help, but according to the voting nobody has done so...

    Could the people who voted please explain why they voted as such? Any other modders offer advice? Or could at least some of the 77 viewers of this topic vote? I'm feeling kinda stupid here...
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  4. #4

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    i can't vote- it must only be open to members to vot, oh and to point out one thing - i don't think we have provincial campaigns nemore
    Leader of The Machiavellian Syndicate - A open community for modders and fans to talk about Total War and Oblivion.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    I think it's an exellent idea, and my offer of help with research stands, just like in the previous attempt.

    I also, just like the prevouis time say that a smaller more standard campaign should be the goal. The rise of the Neo-Assyrians between 911 BC to 612/609 BC (depending a little of how you count the "end of Assyria") or one with the focus on the struggle between Egypt and the Hitties during the 13th Centuary BC. A provincial campaign with either Sargon or some other fellow might however be a good start to learn to mod and the like.

    Anyhow I would like to help with reaserch. Main field of experise is Ancient Near East religion (although I am not a student in Assyriology) but I have accsess to my university library so I can research pretty much any field.
    Last edited by Gurkhal; 12-02-2006 at 20:49.

  6. #6
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,416

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    very cool idea, but I can't help because I am already on a modding team and I do not have M2TW.

  7. #7
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Well, so far it looks like:

    Me - Supreme Commissar , historian, trailers/soundtrack, possibly skinning and modeling
    Gurkhal - Religion historian
    Maculio - Scripting, campaign map, skinner


    That's a nice start, but of course a mod team needs way more to go off of. Since I know that one of the biggest problems with starting mods is the dangerously circular issue that people like to see things before they themselves help out, here are the relics of the RTW concept:

    Assyrian archers - both by me


    Assyrian Archers - armed with composite bows, a spear, and a small shield attached to their arm


    Assyrian Royal Archers - no shield, but more powerful composite bows and swords




    There were also Assyrian Spearmen and Assyrian Cavalry units, but they, along with their archer cousins, were unfortunately accidentally deleted from my machine. As far as I know I never got a screenshot of the Spearmen or the Cavalry, and the only relics of my archers are those screenshots.


    FAR more impressive were the two Sumerian units that Lentonius was kind enough to make for me.


    Sumerian Spearmen - first version. All credit to Lentonius


    Sumerian Spearmen - second version, with more "cloaky" cloak. Cloak modification to model by me, everything else Lentonius

    Unfortunately, I never did resolve the "Action Man" problem, although admittedly I didn't pursue it too throughly for time issues. I'm pretty sure that I still have these on my computer, but even if I don't I imagine Lentonius does.

    Then again, since M2TW skins are double RTW's resolution, and I have little idea as to how similar M2TW's unit coding is to RTW's (I imagine not very much), that might not matter...

    ...except to at least show some skeptics what this mod might look like



    As for the recent comments on provinical campaigns, that is something that will definitely have to be looked into. Some thoughts come to mind:

    1) Making one of the campaigns the tutorial. The Egypt/Hittite campaign, since it's straightforward and features more variety than Sargon's campaign, seems like a good candidate here.

    2) Having one uber-campaign, as insanely complicated as that would be

    3) Figure out a way to jury-rig the "Imperial Campaign" so that if you select Akkad as your faction, you'll jump into the Sargonic campaign, and if you choose Assyria, Babylon, Hittites etc. you'll jump into the "real" imperial campaign. I highly doubt this is possible though.

    Overall, there is at least one imperative throughout creating this mod - actually having the really old stuff: Akkad, Sumer, etc. Not that I don't want the Assyrian and so forth aspect to it, but it kinda defeats the purpose of an "Ama-gi: Total War" without the culture that "ama-gi" comes from

    Good to see there's some interest - I hope more comes!
    Last edited by Comrade Alexeo; 12-03-2006 at 21:51.
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  8. #8

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Ok Comrade Alexeo, just to point out a few things -
    A. You can no longer make provincial campaigns with the currents version of M2TW, so you can only have one large map - or creat a program to start before game to switch which campaign to play.

    B. The models are completely different and your current models will not be of much use due to a change in the format and way the models in M2TW work, and no modelling appears to be possible at the moment.

    Now on to what I can do - I can script, make the campaign map, I can edit the .txt files and as soon as the .texture format is understood I can skin them. Also I have epxerience with websites and could probably get us hosting at medievaltw.com
    Leader of The Machiavellian Syndicate - A open community for modders and fans to talk about Total War and Oblivion.

  9. #9
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Oh dear God! You can actually do stuff! Yes!


    1) Hmmm... that'll require some creativity to get around. It looks like therefore in any version of the mod, one could only have a maximum of two campaigns, the tutorial and the imperial. A thought comes to mind: having different versions of the mod featuring different campaigns. For example, 0.1-1.0 involves working on Akkadian campaign and Egypt/Hittite campaign. Those versions of the mod feature those campaigns. 1.1-2.0 involves the imperial campaign proper, and features that campaign. When, say, v1.5 is released, you can choose to get the "full" v1.5, which is the imperial campaign, or you can download the v1.5 updates for the "old" campaigns (or both). Does that make sense?

    2) I figured as much. Well, at least they give us something to work off of.

    Maculio, your first "assignment" is to do some preliminary work on the campaign map. At this point, that should just involve playing around and experimenting; finding out region limits, understanding map terrain and so forth, and perhaps trying to extend the map a bit if you're so ambitious (ultimately, the final map will be from approximately the western coast of Greece east to about Pakistan, and from about the northern tip of the Caspian Sea south as far as Somalia).

    As of right now, because CA hasn't given us the mod tools yet, it seems that all we can do is plan and organize - which is absolutely perfect since that's what needs to be done anyway!

    If I can get at least one more skinner and one more modeler on board, I'll go ahead and stop in on the "Mods in Development" forum
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  10. #10

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    i have the .txt files so i'm experimenting with them, and i'll see how the campaign works, first things is to check about ground types and see if they've changed, cos heights is the same.
    Leader of The Machiavellian Syndicate - A open community for modders and fans to talk about Total War and Oblivion.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    As for me, I'll start to do some research about Sumerian aged peoples, mostly Sumerians and Akkadians.

  12. #12
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurkhal
    As for me, I'll start to do some research about Sumerian aged peoples, mostly Sumerians and Akkadians.
    Sounds good. Though I know this is obvious, when you do your research and get notes, try and briefly brainstorm how that would be applicable to the mod; i.e., what buildings or units could be brought out of it, abilities, etc.



    Once again, calling all modders - I'd like at minimum another modeler and skinner to help us start out!
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  13. #13

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    okay i've looked at the map and with a bit of time I could make a map using it easily enough - its just that it takes too long to make a working version for me to do it now.
    Is this the area you want? If so i'll start on the heights map.


    Leader of The Machiavellian Syndicate - A open community for modders and fans to talk about Total War and Oblivion.

  14. #14
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Moved to appropriate forum
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  15. #15
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maculio
    okay i've looked at the map and with a bit of time I could make a map using it easily enough - its just that it takes too long to make a working version for me to do it now.
    Is this the area you want? If so i'll start on the heights map.


    Yes, that area is good. Go ahead and start working on that heights map. I'll start working on a list of cities.
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  16. #16

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Would it be possible to also add a list of the factions for, say the first mini-campaign?

  17. #17
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurkhal
    Would it be possible to also add a list of the factions for, say the first mini-campaign?
    Indeed, I'll see if I can't get that up this weekend

    And now... an announcement.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    it gives me the distinct pleasure to put for download

    the TEASER TRAILER for

    Ama-gi: Total War

    The trailer may be found downloaded from here:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/7681509/...easer.WMV.html


    Note that this is only a TEASER trailer to demonstrate the concept and tone of the mod/.

    Freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  18. #18
    Still warlusting... Member Warluster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,590

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Can i help as a Historian? Otherwise anything else.

  19. #19
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Warluster
    Can i help as a Historian? Otherwise anything else.
    Of course, you'd be most welcome to!

    Do you have a specific area of expertise regarding this period? Gurkhal, for example, is knowledgeable about ancient religion.
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  20. #20
    Still warlusting... Member Warluster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,590

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    I am VERY good with all of them, happy to do all considering I LOVE history

  21. #21
    Signifer, Cohors II Legio II Member Comrade Alexeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    I found a great source on the Assyrian army, so I'll see if I can't sketch out some unit concepts :)
    Signifer Titus Vorenus
    Cohors II Legion II
    Triana Fortis


    http://www.geocities.com/tuccius2112...ianaindex.html

  22. #22

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Great. As for additionel the Sumerians are coming along well.

  23. #23
    Gangrenous Member Justiciar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Downloading the trailer now. Great idea for a mod, though. It's a period I've recently developed something of a love for. Good luck.

    Nice touch turning the (Ezekiel?) quote around!
    Last edited by Justiciar; 01-13-2007 at 03:33.
    When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondsmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bound, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty. - John Ball

  24. #24

    Default Re: Ama-gi: Total War - thoughts?

    Don't really know where to post this, so I'll post it here and hope for the best.

    Anyway, I've been thinking a little and looking into the different possible factions which could be used by for our mod. And so I've looked at the candidates I've gather (I could post that list to if there is intresst) and now put together a little fun list of ideas. Comments and critic is welcome

    Also, these factions are based on the idea that we work primerly with the Neo-Assyrian period which is a intressting history. Combining both the revival of the old powers of Mesopotamia and Egypt as well as the serie of newer kingdomes established when these old kingdomes were forced back by the combination of internal weakness and the onslaught of the Sea Peoples, the Arameans and the Hebrews.

    Assyria (the rising power and historicly the most powerful nation/state during the period and in the area.

    Babylonia/Kassites (played an importent roll during the period and was also one of the few powers which could challange the Assyrian dominance)

    Elam (a traditionell enemy of the Mesopotamian powers and would seem to have been a thorn in the Assyrians’ as well as Babylonians’ side)

    Bit Adini/Bakhiani/Jakini (perhaps use one or more of these Aramean states in Mesopotamia to provide some more contenders for the region and also perhaps allow for the possibilty that a new, ahistorically correct hegemony of the area is created?)

    Aram Damascus (a, as I understood it, a powerful Aramean state in Syria centered around Damascus which will both function as a buffert to keep the Mesopotamian powers to steam-rolling Syria to fast and also balance both the Pheonician cities to the west as well as the Levent kingdomes to the south)

    Israel/Judea (perhaps include both, but one of them should be included as they were the remains of the kingdome which untill around 920 BC had dominated the entire Levent region. If both are included they will also both add to balance each other, as well as probably be something of a speed-bump for the Egyptians so that these don’t steam-roll the entire region as well as add a balance towards surrounding factions)

    Sidon (a powerful trade-centre which, if I remeber correctly, also, unlike other Pheonician cities, did form a land “empire” in Lebanon. It could well be both an intressting faction to play as well as playing a fairly importent part in real life)

    Tyre (similer to Sidon except that it was lying on and island and never, historically, formed a land empire. It was however a very importent trade city and founded colonies in the west, most famous would be Carthage. Tyre might also work well along with Sidon as they could balance each other)

    Moab/Edom/Midianites (one of the realms lying south and south-east of Israel/Judea could be good as it would prevent both the formers to expand to deep into Arabia while also they could add balance to the area and also function to be a buffert between Egypt and Mesopotamia)

    Philistines (I don’t think that they did actually play a big part at our period, but they did have a good place with trade routes riveling the Pheonicans and also could be an intressting faction to work against Israel and Judea for balancing cheaks)

    Phrygians (was an importent player in Anatolia after the fall of the Hittie Empire and a prominent Neo-Hittie kingdome, Phrygia would also function well to prevent anyone from sweeping into Anatolia. As well as Phrygia did, to my knowledge, dominate Anatolia for some time untill the invasion of the Cimmerians)

    Lydians (like the Phrygians the Lydians came after the fall of the Hittie Empire and would therefor add some element of balance in Anatolia but also prevent Greek cities in the west to advance uncheacked into the area. Also the Lydians did found a short-lived empire)

    Urartu (a kingdome north of the Assyrians which was one of the Assyrians most importent enemies and one that actually manage to survive the onslaught of many Assyrian kings. It did also at times become very powerful and even mange to stretch down to the Mediterannian)

    Cimmerians (a steep-people which during the end of the period swept down to crush the Phrygian kingdome as well as invaded both the Assyrians and Urartu among others, although they never did mange to create a unified empire to controll their conquest and was eventually defeated by the Phrygians they could add for a historically intressting factor and would fight a little different from the mainstream factions, not to mention that they might provide something of a challange for the later period empires, kind of like the Mongols in the vanilla game)

    Medes (a people which, I frankly know little about, but they were instrumental in defeating the Assyrians and would seem to have grown to power in the vacium left by a devestating Assyrian invasion of Elam, with which the Assyrians hoped to fully and totally destroy the culture on which the Elam kingdom rested, after the fall of the Assyrians the Medes grow to become a very powerful empire, I don’t know when it was actually formed as a real people but the Medes could also act as a form of balance against Assyrian/Babylonian/Elamite expansion into present day Iran)

    Mannaeans/Guti/Malluha (peoples in todays Iran, adding one of them could perhaps add some manner of balance against uncheacked expansion into Iran)

    Sheba (an importent kingdome in the south Arabia which for much time dominated the area, Saba would also prevent that some northern faction did expand fully unchallanged and ahistorically into the sand wastes)

    Hadhramaut (an Arbian kingdome and rival to Sheba which could add some balance against Saba expansion, historically it was a rival of Sheba and actually manage to survie for a brief time the fall of Sheba)

    Egypt (a powerful civilization who was also one of the enemies of the Assyrians and both fough against the Assyrians directly, as well as with them during the later stages when the Assyrians’ empire was crumbling before the Babylonians and Medes, Egypt also dominated African and funded and encouraged revolts against the Assyrians dominance in the Levent area)

    Kush/Nubia/Punt/D’mt (adding one of two of these factions could work as balance against totally uncheacked Egyptian expansion and also make the Egyptians’ position a little more dangerious with the threat of two sides of invasion, rather than only having to worry about attacks across the Sinai)

    Carchemish/Aleppo (both were to prominent Neo-Hittite kingdomes who could both add balance to the Syria-Anatolia border, and it would perhaps not be fully unthinkible that these, or some other Neo-Hittite kingdomes would rise to shoulder the fallen mantle of the Hittite kingdome)

    Corinth (at my knowledge Corinth was the most powerful Greek city at our time, or so it’s thought at least, should Corinth be included we should probably also include also at least one more Greek faction for balance)
    Sparta/Thebes/Athens (factions which could form a balance cheak against Corinth, probably only one or two should suffice)

    Another way to manage Greece and so could be to use nations rather than city-states, thus making the Greece factions like Dorians/Achaeans/Ionians/Aeolians insteed of Corinth/Thebes/Sparta/Athens.

    Rebels (big suprise!)
    Last edited by Gurkhal; 02-20-2007 at 11:14.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO