Fall or Rome Scenario?

[Stuie]

Exactly what I thought - and the reason I bumped your thread....

[Glycerius]

I will have to wait till Friday. But everything from A.H.M. Jones' Later Roman Empire (a wealth of figures and some useful maps at the end of vol. 2 are useful and instructive - compare the density of cities in Roman Africa or Palestina I&II and Arabia to Gallia and Septem Provinciae i.e. France) to a biography of Theodosius the Great should allow me to make something reasonable. One map in LRE has an order of battle for the empire in the early fifth century. But a basic problem is created by the Civ concept of city shields dictating production in any given city. Africa paid the bills for the Western Empire. It was wealthy and productive but not defended in a way commensurate with its wealth. Though giving plenty of good land without shields should be the answer in that regard.

Could someone with the game offer some words on how good this scenario is, either or both in terms of gameplay and historical authenticity (are there any howlers for instance?). Does the scenario editor offer enough to improve it, if improvement is needed?

[asleepathewheel]

Not sure about the history but....

so far I'm enjoying the scenario. I'm playing as the Celts and have driven the Western romans out of GB using the powerful pillager units. Happened quite easily. I took 5 cities, so only 3 more and W.R. is defeated, not sure what will happen then to Rome.

I don't like the elimination part and am not entirely sure of the mechanics, ie. can I retake a city and have it erased? is it just native cities, or do I have to heavily garrison captured cities? CAn I abandon cities? So it looks like I will be razing everything on the mainland when I land, killing the franks and WRs first.

but fun so far. and I'm not sure how plague works, had one city affected for a couple turns...

[Glycerius]

It does sound very interesting and reasonably accurate in that Britain had lost most of its troops when in 406 a usurper Constantine took most of the Roman forces to the continent to support his abortive usurpation. Thanks for replying. I would like to ask a few questions.

How big is the map?

Is either ER/WR playable?

Is there a time limit?

Is there tech progress or is it frozen and the sides given some custom techs each?

Is it the best, worst or middling of the new scenarios\game types that Conquests offers?

Sorry for the questions. I have to wait until Friday for the game.

[TheArsenal]

I haven’t played enough of the scenario to speak to it at any length, but the AI seemed to be doing well with Persia for the bit I played, so that may be a civ beside Rome to consider.

And from what little I saw, I am a fan of the Roman unit, Heavy Cavalry.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Glycerius

How big is the map?

Huge! And it's very nicely done. Easily one of the best parts of the scenario (uh oh).

Is either ER/WR playable?

Not by design. Given the initial Roman tech and unit supremacy (which the AI can't wait to share with the Barbarians! Grrr!), a smart human player could quickly steamroll one or two of the Barbarian Civs at the start of the game when they are very weak. Probably entertaining to try, and it's easy to create a variant with playable Roman civs, so if you want to do this it's not a problem.

Is there a time limit?

Yes, 150 turns. This sounds like a lot, but it isn't really as I'll discuss below.

Is there tech progress or is it frozen and the sides given some custom techs each?

There are theoretically two tech trees, one for the Barbs and the other for Rome/Persia. However, the Barbs can acquire and research all the Roman Techs, although apparently it doesn't work the other way. Plus the Barbarian-only Tree is VERY short (5 techs?) and the progression is very fast. This could/should have been done differently.

Is it the best, worst or middling of the new scenarios\game types that Conquests offers?

Potentially one of the best, but it suffers from a fundamental problem - the entire first part of the game is basically spent developing your Barb civ to the point that you can start churning out units powerful enough to take on the Romans. Empire Building is what civ is all about, of course, but that's NOT what the Barbarian invasions were based on! Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions since I've only played as the Huns, and even there only 1/3 of the way through (which is when the boredom set in). But why is Attila spending all heis energy researching and trading techs and building cities and road networks? As the Huns, I should ALREADY have a large, nasty army that strikes fear into the heart of the other Barbarians and drives them into the Western Empire. But no, the Huns begin with settlers and weak horsemen and it takes almost half the game to build up an infrastructure capable of spitting out the units required to take on either of the Roman Empires. Maybe now is when the fun begins, but I'm bored to tears already! Why couldn't we START in this position? Soooooo. If you love the whole empire building, researching, exploring and tech trading aspect of civ and feel it belongs in EVERY scenario, then this is for you.