Nitpickers list of flaws in the conquests

[joncnunn]

This is with latest patch:

1. Mesopotama : Egypt is somewhat easier to play than historicaly because of the AI barb behavior bug. Restoring PTW barb behavior would give Egypt more of a challenge since they'd then have to spend much more energy fighting the barbs.

2. Rise of Rome : Appears a little too much Rome-centric with only Rome able to build "Citizen" in addition to the Legions and Garrisons. Plus Rome is actually allowed to build the NM (with Ivory.)

3. Fall of Rome : In my game, the Sassidens who start with Tribal Council actually switched govts to Imperalism upon aquiring the Imperalism tech. Imperalism should be made non-tradable and also greatly increase in price so the Sass don't even think about aquiring.

Also the AI doesn't emulate the massive movement of the barb tribes that occured during this era. (Too many to list)

4. Meso America: I'm thinking that the minor tribes should be in a locked alliance against the three major ones individually.

5. Middle Ages: It's very jarring most of the way thru to find Russia in possesion of Aquaducts. (That's in the Bryzantie section!) Looks like the non-tradable beginnings of each of the optional tech branches are way too cheap. It could also use some locked wars:

1. England vs Celts
2. Cordvians vs Castile.
Many others, might be difficult to fit them all in the four alliance structure.

In addition, the AI doesn't emulate the massive movement of muslem civs that took place this era. (****es from Libya to Mesopotaina, Turks from Turkenstan to Turkey)

6. Age of Discovery : The Spanish Empire intrique isn't represented at all in the game. Spain had much more trouble keeping their occuplied terriorities in Europe in line than actually taking them to begin with. In many cases, it was their own nobles sent as military generals to keep the local population under control that rebelled.

7. Rise of the Shogun : Way to easy to bribe the AI into voting for you.

8. Age of Napolean : AI gives away cities for MPP. 'nough said.

9. World War II in the Pacific: AI's problems pulling off a naval invasion really show thru in this conquest. (Granted it's much better than in vanilla)

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Hm, must disagree on most points:
1) Correct.
2) Colony? Don't understand that.
3) Never had that happen, though it is theoretically possible (but a very stupid idea). Imperialism is non-tradeable, and min Tech costs in FoR is 300 turns. The only way Sassanids could get it was stealing it from one of the Romes
4) Bad idea. An AI in locked war will act in wartime mode - no workers, no terrain improvements, no city infrastructure. This will effectively weaken the minor tribes a lot (we saw that in Romes version of FoR; the locked war Barbarian tribes don't develop their land, and especially didn't connect resources - none of them could build HCs, since none had Horse )
5 a) The Rus (not the Russians ) are Byzantine flavor, and that is historically absolutely correct - the Russians are Orthodox Eastern Christians until now (mainly).
5 b) See 4)
5 c) Depends. When Byzantium crumbles, the Turks will go there. And I have often seen the Fatimids conquering all of "Abbassidia".
6) I'm lost on how you think this should be implemented in Civ...
7) True. Like any UN victory. Not exactly a problem of that Conquest's design...
8) Yes. One of many exploits the human is able to utilize. Just don't do it. After turn 1, it isn't possible anyway. Or don't always play with the strongest Civs on the map, Sweden won't get cities for MPPs .
9) Would you believe that this conquest resulted in a much improved AI handling of naval escort, paratroopers, landings, and a more realistic limitation of airlifting? I think it's quite a long time you played such a game with vanilla/ptw, but the difference is huge. In ptw, the AI would not escort their transports/Carrier, and land only single units.

[gunkulator]

2) I think he means the Citizen unit, the 2 move Settler replacement for Rome. Yes, the scenario is Rome-centric - afterall it's called Rise of Rome! Rome gets all the best units but a limited time for a domination victory. I suppose you could play as Persia and win but really the human is meant to play Rome.

[joncnunn]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski
Hm, must disagree on most points:
2) Colony? Don't understand that.
3) Never had that happen, though it is theoretically possible (but a very stupid idea). Imperialism is non-tradeable, and min Tech costs in FoR is 300 turns. The only way Sassanids could get it was stealing it from one of the Romes
4) Bad idea. An AI in locked war will act in wartime mode - no workers, no terrain improvements, no city infrastructure. This will effectively weaken the minor tribes a lot (we saw that in Romes version of FoR; the locked war Barbarian tribes don't develop their land, and especially didn't connect resources - none of them could build HCs, since none had Horse )
5 a) The Rus (not the Russians ) are Byzantine flavor, and that is historically absolutely correct - the Russians are Orthodox Eastern Christians until now (mainly).
5 b) See 4)
5 c) Depends. When Byzantium crumbles, the Turks will go there. And I have often seen the Fatimids conquering all of "Abbassidia".
6) I'm lost on how you think this should be implemented in Civ...
7) True. Like any UN victory. Not exactly a problem of that Conquest's design...
8) Yes. One of many exploits the human is able to utilize. Just don't do it. After turn 1, it isn't possible anyway. Or don't always play with the strongest Civs on the map, Sweden won't get cities for MPPs .
9) Would you believe that this conquest resulted in a much improved AI handling of naval escort, paratroopers, landings, and a more realistic limitation of airlifting? I think it's quite a long time you played such a game with vanilla/ptw, but the difference is huge. In ptw, the AI would not escort their transports/Carrier, and land only single units.

2. Oops, meant Citizen, fixing original post.

5C. Well, I meant actually move the Palace into the former capital of the enemy, athough come to think of it humans aren't likely to emulate the Turks in relocating the Palace either even after successfully capturing the Bryzantie empire. The Civ III version of Turkenstan is either more much productive than the real life version and/or the real life Turks didn't realize the potiential of their starting land.

6. Age of Discovery is a bad timeframe to try to make a historically accurate conquest out of without massive addition of complicated event driven semi-random event rules. Even if Spain had succeeded in landing in England, they would have had extreme difficulties trying to hold on to it past King Philips death.

7. They could remove the War Council wonder entirely.

8. I think France is the most intended human player and England a close second in that one. A human playing Sweeden would probably have to give up all it's cities to get an MPP ...

9. Yes, AI is much better with regard to navy and landing in Conquests, but it still obviously leaves things to be desired.

Add to Rise of Rome:

Human playing Rome can steal 2 Celtic Workers + 1 Egyptain Worker + 1 Macedon Worker + 1 Persian Worker on turn 1 at little net cost! (Hint Contact and WM trading.) Partually offset by how much GPT the Persian AI was able to extort from me for their spare luxary.

I think Carthage is losing this replay of the 1st Punic War going on now even worse than they did historically and are in severe danger of having the sacking of Carthage moved up from the 3rd Punic War into the 1st. What the heck is the AI thinking landing a Worker in the western Silcy city the turn before I attack and take that city. Thanks for the additional slave worker, it's going to greatly speed up my plans on improving Silicy. (Cathage will probably be out of Sardina this coming turn (I landed forces last turn adjecant to both cities) and were already kicked out of Silicy & Corsica)

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by joncnunn
The Civ III version of Turkenstan is either more much productive than the real life version and/or the real life Turks didn't realize the potiential of their starting land.

This is pure speculation on my part - it could be cultural admiration Civ 3 Style and they felt that they would have more legitimation especially from European powers if they were to govern from Istanbul. After all it's an ancient captial and it's right next door to Europe as opposite to some village in mountains.