Collapse of Empires! Fall of Dynasties!

[Exile]

Actually . . . .

I've been toying with the idea of creating my own "Roman Centuries" scenario for some months, but it's now on hold.

The one problem I can't seem to resolve is the "Rebellious Legions" thing. At the end of the Republic period, and then again in the 4th century, Roman military forces turned against each other, marched all over the Mediterranean world, and usually finished up by marching on Rome, whereupon a new Emperor was established, and things went back to normal . . . until the next time.

I haven't yet found a way to simulate this. Until I do, I'm not going to start work on it.

Btw, the ideas in this thread WILL be used if the damn thing ever comes to fruition.

[techumseh]

If you're up for a really complex solution, you might want to look at Angelo Scotto's CPSL. It's essentially a programmable hex editor which functions during a game.

I'm pretty confident it could be programmed to change the ownership of units at a specific set of locations, under preset conditions.

Aside from Angleo himself, I think Kull is perhaps the most knowledgable about it. CPSL is available from the Cradle of Civilzation website.

[Exile]

Hmmmm.

But Brian, isn't Cradle a ToT site? I'm an MGE dude. That's what I work with.

I fear hex editing.

[techumseh]

I think CPSL works with MGE, but I'm not sure. And listen, I'm not recommending this. It's beyond anything I'd attempt myself. Just bringing it to your attention.

[The Apologist]

IMHO, it's not so much a problem with the engine, as a problem with using CivII to do something it wasn't intended to. I mean, really, did the United States stop being a part of English civilisation with the Declaration of Independence? I certainly don't think so (though one might argue that the Capital got moved sometime early in the 20th century). In short wargame scenarios (2194, etc.), this isn't a problem - nor in "upwardly mobile" scenarios (Colonies, frex.) - but if a nation-state is seen as being the embodiement of a civilisation, then there's bound to be problems.

Someday I might get around to doing a global-scale scenario about the rise of Latin Civilisation after the dark ages...

Yeah. Someday.

[Exile]

Yeah.

Good point, Apologist, and that was precisely what I had in mind when I grouped the scandinavian countries, Holland, and Austria together in Imperialism 1870 as one civ, and the Austro-Hungarians with the Germans in the Age of War scenario. In the context of the Civ2 game, I feel that these nations were part of a sub-economy within the larger European economy, and, as such, could be considered as a whole unit. Additionally, there were political, social, and linguistic considerations that linked these nation states together into the player positions in the scenarios.

The issue of eqating a Civ2 civilization with the idea of the nation state is a topic for a thread all by itself.

[Henrik]

I'd set the barbarian level to wrath (or whatever they call the uber difficult level that's not normally accesible in the game). Barbarians will allways attack the most mighty civ, right?

Barbarian wrath spawns 20+ units at a time I believe, with the unit slots adjusted that should make for nice rebel armies... (even though it wouldnt be your own armies turning against you it'd be as close as you might get...) These barbaroians would also land via ships in italy most likely...

Alternatively have a very agressive rebel civ, give it loads of money and generate diplos from time to time who can bribe cities and their reciding armies. (that civ probably wouldn't be as agressive as a barbarian one though).

[Henrik]

I see you posted while I was typing exile ;-o

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Henrik
I'd set the barbarian level to wrath (or whatever they call the uber difficult level that's not normally accesible in the game). Barbarians will allways attack the most mighty civ, right?

Barbarian wrath spawns 20+ units at a time I believe, with the unit slots adjusted that should make for nice rebel armies... (even though it wouldnt be your own armies turning against you it'd be as close as you might get...) These barbaroians would also land via ships in italy most likely...

The problem with that solution, IMHO, is that you can't control WHEN and WHERE it happens!

[Henrik]

It'll allways happen where there is space, ie in the perimiter of your empire. It wont' happen for the first # of turns as I recall, but I'll have to look that up. Anyway barbarian activity is set by which turn it is as much as which techs you have as I recall.

[Cyrion]

Hmm, then there might be a way to control the time of happening by giving a tech by events, maybe...

Sounds interesting...

[Civfan]

Re: Actually . . . .

Originally posted by Exile
I've been toying with the idea of creating my own "Roman Centuries" scenario for some months, but it's now on hold.

The one problem I can't seem to resolve is the "Rebellious Legions" thing. At the end of the Republic period, and then again in the 4th century, Roman military forces turned against each other, marched all over the Mediterranean world, and usually finished up by marching on Rome, whereupon a new Emperor was established, and things went back to normal . . . until the next time.

I haven't yet found a way to simulate this. Until I do, I'm not going to start work on it.

Btw, the ideas in this thread WILL be used if the damn thing ever comes to fruition.

Was just thinking about this and had an idea for people who work the bolts of the civ2 engine.

The move every unit to this location event, can't this be modified to say something such as

all units in a region owning to the civ, change to this new or different civ?

[Exile]

Uh-uh.

Not w/MGE.

[Stefan Härtel]

You could simulate the succession of a popular ruler by an unpopular ruler by having a civ with fundamentalist govt at the beginning, but giving this civ, assumed it is the human player, a new govt tech, for example democracy or communism, which he will likely switch to (make house rules if necessary). Happiness will all of the sudden be an issue (painful especially if he doesn't have any happiness WoW's or is limited in other ways), and maybe slaves will revolt (nuclear meltdowns).

Another way of simulating this would be by giving the civ a democratic government for the popular ruler. Then make a hapiness WoW obsolete (or better more than that so unrests will be impossible to fight within one turn). After two consecutive turns in unrest, the democratic government will fall. Do not give the player the Democracy tech, but rather that of a primitive government (Monarchy, Republic, or none, so Despotism is the only choice). This will guarantee economic downfall.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Yeah.

Originally posted by Exile
Good point, Apologist, and that was precisely what I had in mind when I grouped the scandinavian countries, Holland, and Austria together in Imperialism 1870 as one civ, and the Austro-Hungarians with the Germans in the Age of War scenario. In the context of the Civ2 game, I feel that these nations were part of a sub-economy within the larger European economy, and, as such, could be considered as a whole unit. Additionally, there were political, social, and linguistic considerations that linked these nation states together into the player positions in the scenarios.

The issue of eqating a Civ2 civilization with the idea of the nation state is a topic for a thread all by itself.

one that got debated quite a lot during the pre-civ3 debates over which civs should be in, and whether there should be unique civ attributes. And i think there was a similar debate recently on RON.

It always comes up - cause the games are ABOUT civilization, but essentially we play STATES (civilizations dont have rulers, declare war, etc)