Extended Cultures Discussion

[CaesarVincens]

The new version of XC for XGM 5.7.18 is available on the first post.

I've been thinking, partly spurred by Atraps suggestion, that it may be worthwhile to switch Iberia from its own cultural group to that of Gaul and Germania.
I looked at some articles about Iberia and saw that many of its peoples were Celtic, about half at least. Anyway, I just wanted to know how people felt about this.

[Zarax]

Iberians were quite different than the celts.
There was some influence (stronger one in case of the celt-iberians of course) but they were a quite different stock of people and traditions.
Putting celts and iberians in the same group would be like grouping romans and greeks or carthaginian and pontics.

[CaesarVincens]

Well, half of the Iberia peoples were grouped as Celts, but the other half were differently grouped, non-Indo-European in fact. I suppose there isn't any good way of showing that.

[atraps]

Iberians were quite different than the celts.
There was some influence (stronger one in case of the celt-iberians of course) but they were a quite different stock of people and traditions.
Putting celts and iberians in the same group would be like grouping romans and greeks or carthaginian and pontics.

Zarax you do have a point, but thats not the only reason why were thinking about merging Iberia's culture with the other barbarians. Giving Iberia a seperate culture severly cripples their expanding capability, as their production capabilties are only as good as other barbarians, so they should be able to expand on other barbarian advancement.

[Zarax]

And that would be another good reason to keep them with a different culture (which would be under the same religion group so expansionism won't be hurt as much) as Iberians are supposed to be aggressive defenders and not expansionists.

[Hippias]

And that would be another good reason to keep them with a different culture (which would be under the same religion group so expansionism won't be hurt as much) as Iberians are supposed to be aggressive defenders and not expansionists.

Amen to that - a very interesting faction to play but for some reason it just feels wrong to see an AI Iberia as a dominant expanding faction- much like the Britons in vanilla RTW.

[atraps]

(which would be under the same religion group so expansionism won't be hurt as much)

Yes but the Iberians still have to build their own "Iberian" colony to build high level barracks.

Iberians are supposed to be aggressive defenders and not expansionists.

Yea that is true, but how are we supposed to make that happen with the RTW, where the AI factions have to expand, or they get swallowed up by factions that do.

Remember, im just throwing ideas out, so I havent tested deeply to see how Iberia fares with its own colonies, but im guessing with a combination of Gaulish and Carthaginian forces (and then later the Romans) Iberia will be destroyed early on.

I have been thinking, instead of merging Iberia's culture with the other barbarians, what about keeping Iberia's culture, but make them able to advance and build barracks on barbarian culture. So they are able to build Iberian colonies, but where there is a barbarian colony they will expand on that instead of building another colony.

[Zarax]

Yes but the Iberians still have to build their own "Iberian" colony to build high level barracks.
Yea that is true, but how are we supposed to make that happen with the RTW, where the AI factions have to expand, or they get swallowed up by factions that do.

Remember, im just throwing ideas out, so I havent tested deeply to see how Iberia fares with its own colonies, but im guessing with a combination of Gaulish and Carthaginian forces (and then later the Romans) Iberia will be destroyed early on.

I have been thinking, instead of merging Iberia's culture with the other barbarians, what about keeping Iberia's culture, but make them able to advance and build barracks on barbarian culture. So they are able to build Iberian colonies, but where there is a barbarian colony they will expand on that instead of building another colony.

Different culture means that invading Iberia will be quite difficult as well.
On the plus side you also have to consider that the lower iberian roster is more than a match for the gauls and quite capable to face Carthage as well.
To balance things a bit more we could also increase a bit the rebelliousness of settlements in the area, making them more difficult to retain for the AI.

[CaesarVincens]

I've released a new version of Extended Cultures, the beta for 2.4.

Info here or on the first page.

This version contains several changes, mainly to EDB. It is not save game compatible with 2.3.

New features:
Several building trees revised, Spain no longer gets Arenas, but instead gets the Circle of Elders. New building tree, the Garrison, replicates a garrison. Two new ancillaries for the garrison building tree.

The garrison still needs some work, specifically a better/culture specific descriptions and a new UI icon. And its effects are not final, it needs, well, beta testing, so tell me what you think.

Possible upcoming new features for 2.4:
Thalassocracies, for Carthage, the Greek City States, Saba, and maybe Egypt. More new ancillaries and new traits.

[Zarax]

Thalassocracy might be better for Pontus rather than Egypt, especially given their factional objectives.

[Suppanut]

For "Sea Kingdom" and "Thalassocracies", Why don't we use more fancy term like "Lighthouse"(I know that in ancient era have lighthouse in Mediterraneans more than just in Alexandria), or "Maritime Guild"(Some place you could find ships, crew, and some insurance contracts), and "Naval Base"(port and dockyard that dedicated to military proposed to replace name "Thalassocracies".).

[CaesarVincens]

Pontus would be an excellent faction for thalassocratic status (say that five times fast) I hadn't even thought about them, thanks.


As for names, there're all placeholders right now, I haven't even gotten the effects pinned down, but those are good ideas.

Anyway, any more ideas are welcome, so keep 'em coming.

[Zarax]

Thalassocracy:
- should be able to colonize only in coastal areas
- ports might give a little extra trade income
- possibility to recruit certain units from the docks
- maybe penalties on farming?

[Suppanut]

My proposal for Thalassocracy concept:

Faction Involved: GCS, IGCS, Pontus, and Carthage

Feature:
- Can colonized in coastal region only as need port as colony requirement(and maybe expand to river bank regions)
- Farming panelty from Core building.
- Additional trade bonus from Port.
- LV4 Dock at Huge city which allow Thalassocratic factions to recruit "naval hepteres" without need of Temple of Naval.
- Marine type units from dock LV3(city LV4)(depend on factions; Marine Thorakitai for Greek and Pontus, Maybe marine archer for Carthage).

But for some reason I feel that these condition would boost Pontus than other factions as they have large native colony area(Persian) as well as "naval hepteres" and marine Thorakitai would increase their army/navy power than all other Thalassocratic factions get boost.

[LucretiusTC]

Very interesting ideas about the thalossacracy, guys. I think I would like give that status to the following Factions: the Greeks, Carthage, Pontus and Saba. The Ptolemies had strong maritime interests especially in the eastern Mediterranean region, but they also had many continental interests to defend.

http://www.ecu.edu/maritime/willi1.htm
"At the height of Ptolemaic power, Alexandria maintained several key territories specifically prized for their shipbuilding resources. Egypt's fleet increased to more than 4,000 ships with naval garrisons stationed throughout the Aegean. Competition between Alexander's successors had effectively initiated a great naval arms race in attempts to secure foreign territory necessary to maintaining an ancient fleet. Consequently, the successors develop fantastic supergalleys strictly unique to the Hellenistic period. Eventually internal disputes and corruption contribute to Alexandria's diminishing presence in the Aegean. Egypt compensated for economic downfall when the Ptolemies grew increasingly involved in eastern trade. The Red Sea, however, had its own set of demands, which prompted the Ptolemaic navy to open new sea-lanes, develop harbors and protect merchants from piracy. Once again, Egyptian vessels underwent drastic changes in size as the navy no longer encountered the large galleys of the Aegean and merchants began to deal in smaller luxury items."

Besides I think Saba should include that group. On the gameplay level it would also bring some extra action in the Indian Ocean, especially in the Red Sea region.
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=746&p=culture&a=1
"The war of Sabaa and Himyar against Qataban (around 115 BCE) is rather due to Sabaean and Himyarite reactions to the Qatabanic performance in respect of preserving the Yemenite thalassocracy and the complete navigation control throughout the Red Sea at a moment of rise of Ptolemaic Egyptian seafaring and sea trade in which Aramaeans seem definitely involved. The different Yemenite states, Sabaa, Awsan, Hadramawt, Main, Timna, Qataban, Raydhan and Himyar, were often in agreement with regard to the role each one had to play in its own domain with regard to a generally conceived Yemenite interest. "


Luc.

[Suppanut]

If Saba would get thalassocracy status then I think they should have "Merchant Marine" to recruit from port but what ship should they build instead of Hepteres as Hepteres not suited for open water like Indian Ocean?

On Egypt, They have large scale on land economic so she should not get Thalassocratic status as temple of naval and Lighthouse wonder have already boosted her navy enough.

[CaesarVincens]

Zarax and Suppanut, your thoughts are mirroring mine almost exactly. These are great ideas, I was going to reduce the farming bonus the thalassocracies get as well as boost the trade.

Pontus would get a boost due to the large native Persian area, but that really isn't any different from how it is now.

I'll start working on coding some more of these effects in.

[atraps]

Different culture means that invading Iberia will be quite difficult as well.
On the plus side you also have to consider that the lower iberian roster is more than a match for the gauls and quite capable to face Carthage as well.
To balance things a bit more we could also increase a bit the rebelliousness of settlements in the area, making them more difficult to retain for the AI.

Maybe, but we will have to test it to see if it works as planned.

[Silver Legionary]

Hey, recently I tried XC 2.4 the beta, I think that the garrison buildings are very useful, they are great for keeping order.
Even with the income penalty, it is worth it. Also, I like how you can recruit units from high-level garrisons.
The ancilliaries that come with them are handy, too.

So far, the garrison buildings work. That's what I can tell.

Ah yes, before I forget, regarding the cities that cannot upgrade to huge, they can still upgrade to large, right?

[Scutarii]

Yes.