Fall or Rome Scenario?

[Swissy]

IMHO, plagues are a pain. My least favorite addition in C3C.

[Saint Marcus]

I'm sure they can be turned off.

[Jaybe]

Of Course, plagues are a pain!
But being in total control of the internal events in your civ has always been a real disappointment for me.

I also hope that after a couple games with plagues that you won't be able to predict the effects, that there will be some randomness to it.

[Louis XXIV]

Does anyone else think Rome should be something along the lines of "capital elimination" and not Mass Elmination?

By capital elimination, I mean along the lines of capital risk, capture their capital, and they loose the game (as opposed to any city, or 5 or 10 cities)

[Saint Marcus]

Seems more accurate, indeed.

[kring]

I don't know how easy capitol elimination would be to add to the game, but I do know it would make the scenario too easy. All you would have to do is take a strong force and head straight for the capitol, ignoring all other cities. If you had coastal cities, you could load up ships and drop the troops off close to the capitol. I use this tactic when I am playing multi city elimination (typically 3-4 cities, but it is effective in 1 city). I choose the cities I want to capture and head straight for them, ignoring all other cities.

Plagues can be a pain, but I like the feature.

[Glycerius]

It was mentioned in the thread that there is no event script. But would it not be possible to recreate some of the problems of the era with a technology. Technologies are the way to advance in this game but surely it is possible to have a retrograde technology. This might reduce the production of food or trade in each square or the effectiveness of a building like a library. The technology could be called 'Dark Ages' or something equivalent. It would be neat and simple way of evoking the crises of that era. Is it possible though? Thanks in advance.

[Saint Marcus]

unsure if it's possible, but one could make a tech that makes units obsolete, or to replace them with less effective units. Or improvements. And you can "force" a civ to research it, thanks to the maximal amount of turns needed to research a tech.

[Louis XXIV]

I understand your point about capital elimination. the reason I thought it was better was because the sack of Rome signaled the collaps of the civilization, whose borders had been withdrawing under Barbarian expansionism for many, many years.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, how about mass-elimination still but, instead of a SET number of cities, you have to catch a number of 'POINTS' worth of cities captured? Obviously the Capital would be worth the most points, with major towns and cities being next, with Villages being worth the least! That way, you could win in soo many ways, either by capturing almost ALL of Romes smaller outposts, or by capturing 5-6 really MAJOR cities-including Rome itself!
Of course, from the other end, if you don't know HOW your enemy plans to accumulate the 'City Points' it requires for victory, then it makes defense of your empire a little less certain!!!
Anyway, just a thought-but too late for inclusion in the game, I reckon!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[FrustratedPoet]

That's a much better idea.
Shame we won't be playing that version.

[Saint Marcus]

for us, it's back to the editor then.

[Glycerius]

Rome was sacked twice first by the Ostrogoths in 410 and in 455 by the Vandals. My suggestion in connection with this is that a player is penalised to a lesser extent if he limits enemy control of the capital to one turn, or only Rome and not Ravenna is taken while ensuring that there is no repeat of the sacking. Rome was hardly doomed when it was sacked in 410. Losing Roman Africa to the Vandals in 439, and its revenues was the real deathblow. That and the efforts to retake it. For instance 300 warships were lost in 460 when Emperor Majorian tried to retake it.

So a simple capital elimination would be rather limited. Instead Ravenna, Rome and Carthage (representing Roman Africa and its revenues) should be part of a triple lock. If all three are lost or if at any point or any one out of Roman hands at one time or another, the West Roman empire should lose.

Is multiple city elimination possible? Rome itself was not the primary capital since the early forth century on account of its isolation from the main transport arteries and Ravenna hardly compared with Rome. But losing Rome temporarily was not fatal while the revenues of Roman Africa continued to flow. I hope multiple city elimination is possible.

[Stuie]

Well, the Designer Diary is up for the Fall of Rome Conquest. http://pc.ign.com/articles/456/456423p1.html?fromint=1 Not sure if I'm all that impressed, compared to the other conquests. But, maybe it's just the way the diary is written. Guess we'll find out on November 4.

[Saint Marcus]

plenty of room for me to make a bigger and better version.