Thinking of playing the Conquests - Advice Please

[Catt]

Since C3C came out I've played only epic games - none of the Conquests. I waited until now primarily to let the bugs get worked out, but also because I prefer epic games to scenarios. I've read lots of different views, and in particular read through alexman's thread Are all Conquests like this? I figure I can avoid some of the larger exploits myself (such as diplomacy on turn 1), and understand there are a few serious bugs still (invisible AI units can attack cities, invisible human units cannot in Sengoku) but I'd appreciate any feedback / opinion / insights into the Conquests.

Any scenario-wrecking bugs / problems that make a particular Conquest substantially weak (sounds like AoD with European AIs doesn't work well)?

Any reason you know of to suspend the play of the Conquests until a future patch (I'm on v1.22) addresses some issues?

Should I play one or two levels more difficult than I might otherwise use in an epic game?

I really don't like replaying the same map in an epic game -- if you share the same distaste, did the increased start knowledge offered by the Conquests leave a sour taste in your mouth?

How often have you replayed the various Conquests?

Any other thoughts to share?

Thanks,

Catt

[Dis]

I'm tired of the epic game.

The conquests have their limitations. That's for sure. Much of it is a weakness of the game engine. They did all they could with the editor I guess.

I can't believe he exploited the ai like that. Do peopel have no ethics?

Although maybe I'm just jealous, I've never had found those kinds of exploits. I can never get the ai to give me outrageous deals like that. Often I have to trade them 2 techs just to get one tech.

The great thing about the scenarios, are they are fast. I lack the patience to play epic games. Scenarios are just the right size for me. Excpet maybe Rise of Rome- that takes a long time.

[Antrine]

Feed the Mod makers... We are the hope, the glory in tomorrows dawn.

[Aqualung71]

In hindsight, the Conquests were a massive PR exercise....and admittedly it worked (remember the marketing tag line...."fight for control over tobacco"....I mean, as if!). When I first bought C3C, I went straight to the conquests and played a few. After a couple of weeks I started playing epic games again and I haven't been back to the conquests since, despite telling myself I'll go back to finish them off.

The most engaging ones IMO are Mesopotamia (short, nice new wonders), Mesoamerica (some cool concepts and you gotta love founding towns on mountains!), Sengoku (great units, though short tech tree, so after a while it becomes a slogathon between units with the same stats) and Middle Ages (just because I love the middle ages). Napoleonic Europe also has some nice units, and the locked alliances there are interesting, if you ignore the exploits.

The Rome scenarios have some potential....I played Persia in Rise of Rome, but it took a lot of organisation at the start - cities too widely spread, units all in the wrong places.

The one I have avoided like the plague is WWII. I know a lot of players love the modern WWII idea, but unless you like spending your time just moving units around then there's not really that much in it.

Unfortunately for me, the replayability is just not there. Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt.....ho hum! Which means, as I said, the whole concept was a very clever marketing ploy. But definitely worth a look, even if you only play the short ones.

[WarpStorm]

I find that the Middle Ages Conquest can be played numerous times as the situations are different for the various teams. (With a few minutes modding you can get to some of the challenging teams also, like the Celts).

I wouldn't expect a future patch to solve any remaining issues with specific Conquests. (Other than obvious bugs that apply across the board to the Epic game also). Breakaway (who did the Conquests) is no longer involved and Firaxis is moving on to bigger and (hopefully) better things.

[pedrojedi]

I think the scenarios have a good replay value as far as there are still civs that you still have not played. I particularly love/hate the Rise of Rome, because, well, I just can't make Rome Rise. Still gotta a lot to learn.

[Dominae]

Catt: try out Mesopotamia first. It's a pretty tight scenario that, I believe, fits your playstyle (or, at least, your play preference). The modified tech tree really makes you think when you first play it, which was a major selling point for me.

[Harovan]

Middle ages is fun, I greatly enjoyed it despite of some flaws. If only the AI would stop to settle every bloody patch of land and thus, create an awful mix of French, Burgundian, Byzantinian and Scandinavian cities in the swamps of Russia, it would be great.

[Arnelos]

Personally, I've found all of the conquests (other than maybe Fall of Rome, which I can't seem to get working properly) to be fun. I have to say that for multiplayer, my preference for various conquests changes a lot though.

In SP, my favorite conquests are Mesopotamia, Sengoku, and Middle Ages.

In MP, my favorite conquests are Age of Discovery, Napoleonic Wars, and Mesoamerica.

I have found that I don't like the WW2 in the Pacific or either of the Rome scenarios as much, but they're sorta fun and certainly not BAD.

[Dis]

WW2 was kind of cool initially. The main thing with this one is it is purely a war scenario. Someone said earlier that the scenarios are all about war, which is not the truth entirely. Although this one is. Most base facilities have been built, or there is no need to build (aside from airports or harbours). so you can change your mobilization and just go to an all out war. The balance is kind of off to me though. And only 2 real factions to play. Although it might be interesting to play someone challenging like the dutch or chinese.

Some scenarios can be builder scenarios such as mesopotamia and mesoamerica (although this one I treated as a warmonger scenario), and age of discovery.

[Dr. A. Cula]

I've had the biggest surprises with the WW2 scenario. First time I played with the Chinese and got an allied victory just when I was about to kick the Japanese out of mainland China. Next, I played the Americans and lost to a Japanese domination victory a few turns after I occupied Tokyo and the neighbouring cities. This time, Japan took out China. All of it.
I think the fastest paced scenario is the fall of Rome. Both Roman empires start with huge VP scores and barbarians start at zero. If it weren't for the 8 city elimination rule, this one would be impossible to win. I got both Roman empires when they were a few hundred VPs from maximum.
You can have fun as a warmonger even in the age of discovery scenario. I played the French and kicked the English and the Spanish out of Europe.

[planetfall]

Catt,

I enjoyed playing a couple of times, but in general they are not as much fun as the epic game. I have been working on my game play and now break even in emperor games. Trying a couple of changes in each new epic game is much more fun than playing the scenarios. However, there is some value in playing the scenarios, if for no other reason than
-- see the effects of different tech trees
-- see the effects of victory points
-- starting with a common prestarted game.

Unfortunately I can't remember all the scenarios, but I guess the one's I can't remember were too boring.

Rise of Rome-- good for waiting and learning about VP locations
Fall of Rome-- not too interesting
Age of Discovery-- too tedious with shuttling of treasures
Napolean-- annoying that can't build new cities. Limited replay value for learning strategies when you are target country surrounded by enemies.
WWII -- also annoying can't build cities. Good play at first with limited number of units. Biggest problem is the short 50 turn limit.
Japan-- boring, just a lot of civs to work thru.
Crusades-- not bad. Using priest unit is interesting. More decision making required on the order of tech research and trade.

Don't recall the rest. I can't imagine you would have any trouble with any of the scenarios. I would recommend trying the best:
Crusades
Napolean
WWII pacific

and then decide if you want to play any of the others.

PF

[Cerbykins]

I dunno...if you can stop seeing it as an exercise in efficiency and enjoy the flavour, they all have real merit. Although, that more paints a bad picture of my abilities than the decency of the conquests
Still - try them - I'm not a scenario guy myself, but they have a strange draw on me

[Catt]

Well, I've played one and am now playing a second -- my views soon.

Catt

[Arnelos]

I was disappointed in the WW2 in the Pacific scenario mainly because I found a rather enormous exploit that I could use against the poor Japanese- player AI.

The AI seems to be prone to re-directing the Pearl Harbor attack fleet halfway across the board if you put the Luzon fleet out into the Pacific Ocean on the first turns where the Japanese can see it.

Furthermore, you can rush an airport in Manila and start airlifting in troops from the Western U.S. at several units per turn. Sure, the Japanese will bomb the crap out of Manila to get rid of the airfield (I was actually IMPRESSED by how the AI seemed to consistently realize just how much of a threat the airport in Manila was), but you can generally airlift in enough troops before they knock out the airport that Manila becomes EXTREMELY hard for the Japanese to take without devoting way too much effort into it.

While the Japanese are bashing their heads away trying to take Manila, you wipe out the misdirected Pearl Harbor attack fleet with the U.S. Pearl Harbor fleet and then start building up for your move to relieve the Philippines and start retaking any islands the Japanese have taken.

After a while, it becomes a cakewalk.