to be or not to be?

[Paddy]

so shall we continue once a victory has been achieved or finish?

McMeadows has made an interesting suggestion, that once we finish here, we then move onto the next Rome scenario

[McMeadows]

As in continue with the next Roman scenario..

[Paddy]

the vote be to continue this scenario....


or to finish this scenario and move into another, possibly the other Rome

[joncnunn]

I think Fall of Rome as Visgoths on Demigod would be great as the next DG. The Visigoths are in the most challenging position with both Romes so close in front and those other barbs so close behind.

And remember to turn AP off.

We might also want to mod Fall of Rome to insert a new non-optional tradable tech "Being Rome" that's extermely expensive and make Imperalism a prereq to that. In addition making Imperlism non-tradable as well. The Romes would then need to start with "Being Rome" as well.

The idea is to hide Imperalism from the AI so that the Sassidens aren't tempted to research it.

Additional to make this more challenging as the barbs, change Garrison from 1/2/1 20s to 1/3/1 20s and remove "AI Defense" flag from Legions.

[Micha]

Originally posted by joncnunn
I think Fall of Rome as Visgoths on Demigod would be great as the next DG. The Visigoths are in the most challenging position with both Romes so close in front and those other barbs so close behind.

When I first played the scen, I took Visigoths because I thought them to be the easiest
But back then I was still thinking they were the tribe in Spain...

And remember to turn AP off.

Excuse my ignorance (not knowing it) and my laziness (not reading it up ) but what exactly is AP?

We might also want to mod Fall of Rome to insert a new non-optional tradable tech "Being Rome" that's extermely expensive and make Imperalism a prereq to that. In addition making Imperlism non-tradable as well. The Romes would then need to start with "Being Rome" as well.

The idea is to hide Imperalism from the AI so that the Sassidens aren't tempted to research it.

Erm, I think I am getting something wrong. If we want to prevent non-Romans from researching Imperialism, why would we make it a PREREQUISITE of "being Roman"??? I think it would make more sense to make "Roman" a prereq for Imperialism... Or not?

I like the idea, though. I always like those flavour techs of cultural distinction... They add so much to the game...

[Donegeal]

At this point, another DG will take awhile, even with Accel Prod (Thats AP Micha) on. Whatever DG is decided on, it has to be done before Civ IV comes out around Christmas.

[joncnunn]

That is what I'm saying, the new non-tradable optional tech "Being Roman" added. Imperalism modified to have "Being Roman" as a prereq and also made non tradable.

AP = Accel Production.

Fall of Rome isn't nearly as time consuming as Rise of Rome.

Not many cities are needed to win as FoR. A few core ones and then a stack of Warlords that keep on raizing the fastest 8 cities in each empire to do so starting with both Romes. Rinse, repeat until 35K victory points reached. The cities just need Temples & Baracks. And one city should build the Scourge of God. Any other improvements built on those cities aren't really needed to win, and in fact are often counter productive to the goal of winning until you have enough War lords to where it doesn't really matter.

This is in sharp contrast to RoR where you need to get both 50% of the pop and 20% of the land.

Originally posted by Micha

Excuse my ignorance (not knowing it) and my laziness (not reading it up ) but what exactly is AP?



Erm, I think I am getting something wrong. If we want to prevent non-Romans from researching Imperialism, why would we make it a PREREQUISITE of "being Roman"??? I think it would make more sense to make "Roman" a prereq for Imperialism... Or not?

I like the idea, though. I always like those flavour techs of cultural distinction... They add so much to the game...

[joncnunn]

All the barbs start where they were at the time of the Roman empire being defined.

The Visigoths were responsible for kicking the Vandals out of Spain and settled there, but only after they had been driven out of Central Europe by the Huns.

The Middle Age Conquest also starts with civs located where they were at the start of Middle Ages. (Turks, and Fastaphids most notably)

Originally posted by Micha


When I first played the scen, I took Visigoths because I thought them to be the easiest
But back then I was still thinking they were the tribe in Spain...

[roadcage]

Talk about indecision, after 12 votes there are 4 yes, 4 no, 4 banana.

[Addled Platypus]

now its 4/5/4

And now for something completely different

Is there a scenario like this?
Play when Rome is in the down fall and try to reserect

[Paddy]

ahhh the joys of a democracy

I think Joncnunn has some great ideas here for where we go onto

[joncnunn]

That's called "Rome Everlasting" or something like that.

The Civ Fanatics tried this as two concurrent DGs on their site. (One for WR and the other for ER)

Both groups found it easy because they had corrupt cities being taxmen & scientists producing wealth and used their military almost from turn 1 to start wiping out the barb tribes before the barbs get a chance to get to their best units.

ER thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=80447

WR thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=80490

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
now its 4/5/4

And now for something completely different

Is there a scenario like this?
Play when Rome is in the down fall and try to reserect

[Paddy]

is there away to harden it up?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
is there away to harden it up?

Sid?

/me bursts in diabolic laughter *

[joncnunn]

Both of these groups played this on Demigod.

E Rome group sugests removing possibility of romes from being able to build both settlers and workers. [In case of workers, this may be removing ability to build workers to whichever rome we play only]

Both W Rome and E Rome groups sugest that barbs be given a few more starting cities in leiu of starting nomads. (We affectively place several of the nomads in effective city locations where there is one with one or two turns movement of the nomads were converting.)

Both W Rome and E Rome groups sugest barbs be allowed to trade contact immedately. That could be done by adding share contact ability to Barbarism.

Both groups sugest locking the Orths in an alliance with the Huns aqainst E Rome

W Rome group sugests removing one of the Legions from England

W Rome group sugests increasing the costs of Legions

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
is there away to harden it up?