200BC - The rise of Rome and Han
This is the thread to discuss and update anything related to the 200BC on GEM scenario development.

Current release (Version 1.2) - Released: 25 Jul 2008
Units with promotions now starts at their appropriate level.


Previous release (Version 1.0) - Released: 15 Jun 2008
The 200BC scenario starts with plenty of actions around the globe: The 2nd Punic war between Rome and Carthage; The 1st Macedonian war between Macedon and the Aetolian League; the 5th Syrian War between the Seleucid and Ptolemy; the rise of Xiong Nu and the Chu Han contention in China.

The playable nations are:


Rome
Macedon (inc. Achaea + Bithynia)
Greece (Aetolia + Pergamon)
Gaul (Celt)
Briton (Celt)
Teuton (Germanic)
Veneti (Slavs)
Dacia

Carthage
Ptolemic
Meroe
Armenia
Sheba
Selucid
Parthia

Bactria
Scythia
Wu Sun
Yue Zhi
Mauryan
Satavahana
Cholas

Xiong Nu
Han
Chu
Nan Yue
Mon
Gojoseon (Korea)
Yamato (Japan)

Nok
Bantu

Maya
Cuicuilco
Chavin
Lapita (Polynesia)


Instruction
This scenario will come with GEM mod version 5. Only available in BTS version.

Screenshots group 1:

Rome, Iberia/Carthage, Gaul and Greece.

Screenshots group 2:

Syria/Egypt, Persia, Meroe and Bactria

Screenshots group 3:

India, Xiongnu, China and Japan/Korea

Screenshots group 4:

Mesoamerica and Incas

200BC - The rise of Rome and Han
This is the thread to discuss and update anything related to the 1940AD on GEM scenario development.

An impressive list, for 200 BC.;)

It looks awesome, I'm very eager to try it out.

Especially after the unfortunate defayance of IJnavy 200 BC :(

So far I am facing a problem in city placement - whether or not I should give cities to those civs such as Teuton and Britons. There were definitely fortified settlements in those area, but I can't find any names. I am very reluctant to place cities with names that are not of that age.

I gave cities of different tribe names. Like for the Celts in my 200 BC, I found names of different Celtic tribes and used those names as names for cities in the region where they lived.

I gave cities of different tribe names. Like for the Celts in my 200 BC, I found names of different Celtic tribes and used those names as names for cities in the region where they lived.

Yeah, in some sense, I am doing just that. However, in more details, the questions I am concerning are:

1) If I give cities to represent each tribe, then all of north Europe would be full of cities. Should I really do that for a 200BC scenario?
2) Which of these cities should be placed under the 'Teuton' or 'Gaul' in the scenario? Which should be left as Barbarian or minor nations? This is very difficult. On one hand, I can't place all of them according to their ethnicity. I remember I once saw an ancient scenario with Celt having cities everywhere in Europe and got even more cities than the Roman! :crazyeye: On the other hand, for game balancing, I want to give each civ more than one city.

So what I am doing, is to find out which tribe among all is the most strongest/representative, then find out those other tribes of the same ethnicity who were at least nominally united or friendly with that representative tribe to be put under it's banner. The complexity of Europe at the time is driving me crazying and that was why I stopped working on 200BC scenario and worked on the 1940AD scenario previously!:cry:

Yes, choose the Strongest tribe. For Gaul, there are enough cities, I choose the city that became Paris (forgot the name), Burdigala, and Condate. For the Celtic tribes, I remember the capital was Boii. Maybe my 200 BC map can help a little?
Also, I would change Thrace to Dacia, I think that It was stronger.

Yes, choose the Strongest tribe. For Gaul, there are enough cities, I choose the city that became Paris (forgot the name), Burdigala, and Condate. For the Celtic tribes, I remember the capital was Boii. Maybe my 200 BC map can help a little?
Also, I would change Thrace to Dacia, I think that It was stronger.

OK, I will take a look at yours. Thanks.

Genghis Kai, how is it going with the set up?

Genghis Kai, how is it going with the set up?

The scenario is basically completed. I just need to play test it more for game balance.

New screenshots are uploaded.

Nice screenshots! Tried out Rome: lost 4 Pretorians, 2 Galleys in about 10-11 turns, but managed to build the Oracle plus capture Carthage and Numantia before making peace, leaving Carthage with a capital in S Italy. (For the future I plan to conquer/assimilate some more cities and, having made peace with the Gauls and Macedon, see which civ is next to be taken on. Carthage may declare war again - though I doubt it - and their Numidian Cavalry is quite deadly on occasion, but after gaining 3rd rank in score I reckon there's bigger fish around to tackle.)

Noticed 2 things while playing:

- the Carthaginian fleet appears to be a little too large (after the 1st Punic War they were allowed something like 10 warships, which in Civ terms translates to 1 Trireme - the Galleys I don't mind); Rome should have naval supremacy in the Western Mediterranean
- "Gallic leader" can be Brennus (too late), Ambiorix or Vercingetorix (too early); if you don't want a known Gallic leader I can find another name in Caesar's Gallic Wars.

- the Carthaginian fleet appears to be a little too large (after the 1st Punic War they were allowed something like 10 warships, which in Civ terms translates to 1 Trireme - the Galleys I don't mind); Rome should have naval supremacy in the Western Mediterranean


Oh ok. I will check.

I played this scenario a couple of times, and noticed that Dacia for some reason manages to found Islam quite early in the game. That's ehm... weird. Dunno if they are very close to researching Divine Right when they start the game or what. Also Christianity is founded in the first couple of turns too. Maybe it's just my luck, or lack of it, haha.

JEELEN, I've checked and I didn't see that agreement after 1st Punic War. Moreover, there were records that the Carthaginian uses 55 ships to invade Sicily during 2nd Punic War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lilybaeum.

Is there anyone else played the 200BC scenario? I haven't got time to try it myself. I would like to hear more feedback on it.

JEELEN, I've checked and I didn't see that agreement after 1st Punic War. Moreover, there were records that the Carthaginian uses 55 ships to invade Sicily during 2nd Punic War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lilybaeum.

Is there anyone else played the 200BC scenario? I haven't got time to try it myself. I would like to hear more feedback on it.

I have a game in progress - as the romans -and I'd like to post when I'm done with it.
The scenario is solid and works well.

My only reservation regards the diplomatic modifier when it goes to over -20.
I understand the attempt to reproduce historical clashes...but that high undermines nearly every chance to stipulate a peace treaty.
I'm sure it was done on purpose but who knows, perhaps a -20 is better than a -100, if you want a less deterministic approach.

Ah, Parthia starts well against the Seleucids but ultimately failed - at least in this game - to expand.
Their attack was rebuffed and they ended up with 3 cities.

There are a few city names, latin ones, that should be edited/fixed.
I'll try to post a list later.

In conclusion, extremely good scenario.

Just notice Potlemy has Monuments instead of his unique building Obelisk's

Gone try this scenario too :P

Scratch the note above... It was a captured city

Scratch the note above... It was a captured city

Thanks :)

I haven't play a game on 200BC after it is released. Too interested in WW2 lately :D

Now that I've got a computer that can run GEM well (sweet art thou, 4 gigs of RAM), I've played about 500 turns into this scenario as Carthage and I love it. I do have a few concerns about Inca and (especailly) the Lapita; in all of those 500 turns, the latter have not done *anything*. They're still hiding out in their little city with all the units they startred with. The Inca are in a similar postion. Perhaps something could be done to make them both a little more active?

JEELEN, I've checked and I didn't see that agreement after 1st Punic War. Moreover, there were records that the Carthaginian uses 55 ships to invade Sicily during 2nd Punic War.

I think I was confused with the end of the 2nd Punic War, sorry!:blush: (I've tried the Romans a little longer and managed to capture Libya, Massilia, Saguntum and Carthago Nova, then made peace with the Celts. With my last save I was hesitating between peace/subjugation of what remains of Carthage.)

I would like to second a modification of the Parthian and Incan start, though (Inca might be Nazca - or Chimu - instead as well, as they both preceded the Incas.)

Hi there;

Played this great mod for a couple of days and ran into some video error.
Failed to allocate video memory. Try to reduce graphic settings.

Then there is some directory that I can't find:

Main\Civilization4\SDKs\Gamebryo_2\Corelibs\NiDX9R enderer\
NiDX9SourceTextureData.ccp Line:321

Anyone some idea ?

Hi there;

Played this great mod for a couple of days and ran into some video error.
Failed to allocate video memory. Try to reduce graphic settings.

Then there is some directory that I can't find:

Main\Civilization4\SDKs\Gamebryo_2\Corelibs\NiDX9R enderer\
NiDX9SourceTextureData.ccp Line:321

Anyone some idea ?

Please read post 3 here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6863669&postcount=3

That should do the trick. :)

Playing a game as the Incans, not having any trouble expanding to take all of south america. Just placing the last few cities as the AI has begun sending out ships with settlers to unsettled areas. Han is up to 15 vassals! The fought rome, kicked its butt and once they capitulated all of their vassals follwed suit.

I'm starting to catch up with the crappier Euroasian Civs in tech so hopefully I can trade my way through. That might be for nothing though if Han vassalizes a few more civs, it will be everyone versus me.

I recently played this scenario as the Parthians, and noticed turn times were always below 30 seconds for the entire game - much lower than on other GEM scenarios. Took me 28 hours to finish with a domination victory in 1588 AD, two cities short of a conquest victory - damn shame, I'd really like to have achieved that.

Some thoughts on the scenario settings: I played with "no vassal states", which is a matter of taste and to my mind helps speed up the game, and "no barbarians", which I believe helps to adress a problem with the AI behaviour. If you leave the barbarians on, they tend to found useless cities in Siberia, Canada and other remote areas, and the AI will occupy itself with conquering these cities, which leaves them with stupidly spread out cities (single greek and indian cities in Siberia and the like) and takes away their performance in their natural regions of interest. In fact, I would recommend "no barbarians" as a standard GEM setting for all scenarios, it will only take away the "random" barbarians, but leave pre-placed barbarian cities intact and working.

Best Regards,
Martin

I recently played this scenario as the Parthians, and noticed turn times were always below 30 seconds for the entire game - much lower than on other GEM scenarios. Took me 28 hours to finish with a domination victory in 1588 AD, two cities short of a conquest victory - damn shame, I'd really like to have achieved that.

Looks cool!


Some thoughts on the scenario settings: I played with "no vassal states", which is a matter of taste and to my mind helps speed up the game, and "no barbarians", which I believe helps to adress a problem with the AI behaviour. If you leave the barbarians on, they tend to found useless cities in Siberia, Canada and other remote areas, and the AI will occupy itself with conquering these cities, which leaves them with stupidly spread out cities (single greek and indian cities in Siberia and the like) and takes away their performance in their natural regions of interest. In fact, I would recommend "no barbarians" as a standard GEM setting for all scenarios, it will only take away the "random" barbarians, but leave pre-placed barbarian cities intact and working.

Best Regards,
Martin
I never tried with "no barbarians" on. That seems to be an option worth considering. One point thought - even if there are barbarian cities in Canada and Siberia, AI will still send their settlers there to build cities.

I never tried with "no barbarians" on. That seems to be an option worth considering. One point thought - even if there are barbarian cities in Canada and Siberia, AI will still send their settlers there to build cities.

Ace of Spades definitely has a point there. Time between turns is a key issue with GEM. (Also, AI may send Settlers, but not invading armies to kill off barb cities as they generally tend to - I noticed the same issue with some of my scenarios.) I would recommend adding a suggestion of the No Barb option to any GEM scenario with regards to this.

Looks cool!


Yes, I have to say that the Parthians are a really interesting choice for a civ to play with if you like conquest. You start out with two cities and lots of promoted immortals, and your first goal is to conquer the Seleucids. Once you've done that, you can basically just keep conquering small civs on your borders (Bactria, Armenia, Scythia) and the continue into Northen Africa, Europe, India and China. If I remember correctly, I was at peace for at most 10 turns during the whole game.

I never tried with "no barbarians" on. That seems to be an option worth considering. One point thought - even if there are barbarian cities in Canada and Siberia, AI will still send their settlers there to build cities.

That is correct, but colonization seems to be done mostly by civs in the area then. In my game, the Gojoseon colonized Manchuria, the Han colonized Siberia, and the Wu Sun colonized the region around the Urals, while the Veneti and Teutons colonized Scandinavia. At least the territories looked somewhat coherent, there was no patchwork of cities, except for Indonesia and Australia - as you can see on the screenshots, one of the last AI cities left in my game is a Chu city in Australia. Another thing is that the AI priority for founding cities in the mentioned (northern) regions is rather low, since the land yields few ressources - however, if the barbarians found a city there (and they do not seem to care about low yields), it seems the AI will conquer them regardless of their uselessness as a matter of principle.

By the way, the Mauryans were the strongest AI by far in this game (last time, when I played with Rome, it was the Han, so there seems to be a good variation). They conquered all of Indochina and Indonesia, and were able to keep up with me in tech for quite some time, although they unfortunately skipped on the military techs (Rifling, Engineering).

Best Regards,
Martin

I played this scenario a couple of times, and noticed that Dacia for some reason manages to found Islam quite early in the game. That's ehm... weird. Dunno if they are very close to researching Divine Right when they start the game or what. Also Christianity is founded in the first couple of turns too. Maybe it's just my luck, or lack of it, haha.

Has anyone else noticed this? I have converted the 200BC scenario to work with Rise of Mankind 2.81 with New Dawn Modmod and I too notice that in 5 starts both Islam and Christianity are founded in 180BC despite the founding Civ's not having the required tech?