With the arrival of C3Conquests and the warm enthusiasm of succession game players to play, I would like to open up this Discussion thread for topics related to RBCiv series games, whether tossing out ideas, hammering out parameters, or questions. Such threads have been very helpful in the past, both in the development of new ideas as well as for avoiding cluttering up existing 'game' threads with off-game-topic discussion.

For clarity, the RB series of games represent those of/by/for Realms Beyond Civilization, and the RBCn games are the new series for Conquests games (RBP was for PtW, RBD for the original game, RBE a wild ride of deity only games). It's not a formal guild or anything, just a (usually) like-minded set of folks who enjoy playing strategy and action games for their challenge, who favor honorable/non-exploitative play, and who like to have fun! :lol:

Homepage: http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/
Epics Rules and Discussion of Exploitative Tactics: http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/etactics.html
RBCiv Forum: http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/189557 (Includes all discussion of 'Epics' and other assorted topics)

RBC games are like a 'Republic', not owned by any one person or committee, but opened by those who abide by the non-exploit rules, and who have participated in and completed a RB succession game. These are 'musts' which ensure a consistent and quality game experience for all involved. The other near-must is to discuss a game in some fashion (RBCiv forum, PM, a SG or this thread) before starting it. We hate to see half-baked ideas for games started, or insufficient sign-up, which can litter the forum with games that are never finished (or worse, never started). Keep in mind too that the RBC series is a home for interesting or variant games, but by no means the only one. In the past year the number of outstanding variant/themed/challenging SG games has gone way up, and many folks playing along the lines of RB-Epic rules have their own series, which is cool to see.

I'll finish with the reason for kicking off this thread now -- we're going to be going through the 'Conquest' scenarios, and have started with RBC2 Mesopotamia Phoenicians. To give a wider audience a chance to sign up or comment on the games, and to get the right options set before a game is posted, let's use this thread for Conquest games discussion. Sulla (a beta tester) will be running the second one, Rise of Rome, so any discussion of that or others belongs here.

Thanks! I look forward to gaming with my many old friends here, as well as meeting several new ones through the joyride known as the 'Succession Game'. (Let me give a big thumbs up too, to Thunderfall, Chieftess, Moonsinger, Padma and other CFC fanatics who make this all possible! :goodjob: )

Let the games (discussions) begin! :hammer:
Charis

I would be extremely interested in joining a Rise of Rome Conquests game (Sulla). I realize I am not an RBCiv player so I will have the least priority, but if there is an "A" and "B" team, maybe I can sneak in somewhere?
I have completed many Succession Games here at Civfanatics, and I "think" I have a decent rep. :)

We presently have three SG teams competing in a GOTM 24 variant that mad-bax and cracker have set up. It might be really fun to get several teams together to compete against each other in one of the Conquests. This would do several things:

1. Get more people involved in SGs
2. Get more people thinking in the RBCiv non-exploitive way of thinking (a hats off to folks like LKendter, T-Hawk, Arathorn and several others that I can't remember at the moment for promoting these ideas in their SGs)
3. Provide new experiences for all involved
4. Explore the new scenarios
5. Have fun competing as a team.

I'm sure you'll have a lot of sign ups.

Thanks for listening,
Bugs

Originally posted by Sir Bugsy
2. Get more people thinking in the RBCiv non-exploitive way of thinking (a hats off to folks like LKendter, T-Hawk, Arathorn and several others that I can't remember at the moment for promoting these ideas in their SGs)


I think the ultimate testimony to that working is games have started saying we will use the LKendter or RBCiv exploit lists. RBCiv is the tougher of the two, but my list has gotten closer over time.

It might be really fun to get several teams together to compete against each other in one of the Conquests

Would the GOTM team play by the RBCiv rules ? :groucho:

:lol:

Because each player posts a turn log, most of a team's actions can be scrutinized. Yes, a portion of a player's turn will be on the honor system, i.e. no re-loads. But that is the case in the RBCiv world also. I think this could be a great opportunity to spread the RB ethics, raise the levels of participation and skill, and spread the word that all of you have been trying get out over at RBCiv

I like your idea Bugsy. It could have Gotm teams, SG teams and RBCiv teams. We could call it the World Championship C3C matchups. :lol: I'll play in the SG team, if they'll have me. ;)

OK, I'm slow on the uptake here. :blush: Now I understand what Skyfish is saying. I would think we could have 3 or 4 teams each playing the same game by the same rules. You could have folks chose a team with their buddies or have someone assign people to a team.

RBCiv is the tougher of the two, but my list has gotten closer over time.

Except ofcourse in the case of worker buys ;).

I think the Charis is correct in thinking that RBC2 will be over quickly and after playing tonight I don't see why it wouldn't be. IF interest is strong enough I would like to be apart of the second team on the Rise of Rome game. The last Team/competion game I played with Sullla I think is still going on ;).

Anyway, I think that SG's are a great way to get introduced to the Conquest. I can't find time to delv into the conquest as a single player game but have been enjoying them in SG format.

Hotrod

I would also like to be a part of any RBC Conquest game.

I posted some ideas on the conquest scenariso in general and perhaps Sulla has some insight into my question.

The question is this: Does difficulty level matter? How does a conquest scenario vary by difficulty if unit numbers and locations are predetermined? SEE RBC2

I understand trading costs, production costs, happiness issues, etc but isn't one of the largest difference in Btween deity and say Monarch the sheer number of free units, settlers and workers the Deity AI starts with. Do the Conquest scenarios take difficulty level into account when starting units are determinge? I doubt it? All that being said what difficulty should these games be played at?

Hotrod

Count me in for a 2nd team in Rise of Rome if one is formed. I don't think either of the 2SG's I'm in are going to be very demanding time wise.

being a huge fan of Roman history I'd love to play in a rise of Rome scenario; however, as it appears that everyone wants to take part in that one, I won't mind if I don't make the cut.

Lots of interest floating around here and many different possible ideas. Let's see if I can clarify some of that a bit. :)

The question is this: Does difficulty level matter? How does a conquest scenario vary by difficulty if unit numbers and locations are predetermined? SEE RBC2

This is a valid question posed by hotrod. First of all, I'll say that those playing in the Mesopotamia SG have been a little thrown off their experiences - the games are not always that easy. Looking at the Phoenician civ, it definitely seems that they start in an excellent position to dominate the game. Maybe if I had formally tested that scenario, I would have seen the problem and addressed it. Sorry on that - couldn't be everywhere at once. :D

The real answer is that difficulty still matters in the scenarios, but MUCH LESS than it does in the standard game. Or, to put it another way, the difference between Emperor and Deity in one of the Conquests is much lower than in the standard game. This doesn't mean they are all easy, but on the whole, winning on Sid is entirely possible in the scenarios while it is next to impossible in a standard game. I recommend playing SGs on either Demigod or Deity, because with the players we have assembled here, anything less will be just a laugh to win on.


Here are the parameters for the game I had envisioned for the Rise of Rome SG.

Scenario: Rise of Rome
Civ: Carthago
Difficulty: Deity
Goal: Win by Domination before the time limit is up

Carthage starts and remains in a locked war with Rome for this entire scenarios. Can we first defend ourselves and then expand in the face of the strengthened (and Deity-cheap) Roman legions?

Interest is extremely high already for a game which hasn't even started yet. We can do a couple of different things here, whatever the group most is interested in. And we don't take this kind of sentiment: I'd love to play in a rise of Rome scenario; however, as it appears that everyone wants to take part in that one, I won't mind if I don't make the cut. If that happens, it's time to create another game with more signups! :cool: Here's some possible ideas:

1) Run "A" and "B" succession game teams from the same start, in the vein of smegged's RBD23 game (kudos to anyone who remembered/played in that game and is still here!)
2) Run "A" and "B" games with different civs on the same difficulty, to get the feel for two different sides. A Carthage/Roman dichotomy would be interesting to explore, or we could do Carthage/Persia for the non-classical civs thing.
3) Run "A" and "B" games with the same civ on different difficulty. Everyone might not be up for a Deity game, and we could then explore the effects of difficulty on the scenarios in more detail.
4) Something else I haven't thought of! :p

Running GOTM/RBCiv teams might not be the best idea; the goal is more to build cooperation than to turn this into a competition between rival bodies (heaven forbid someone start thinking of our groups as "clans"). I count 8 potential interests already, so if there are more signups we could possibly be going to three teams. Let's have some feedback on what options would be the best, so that by the weekend I can set up the games and start play. :D

Sulla: From the options you list I would favour having teams playing the same difficulty but playing different civs in the scenario to get a feel for the game from a different perspective.

I vote with Nad. Same difficulty, different Civs.
(P.S. what if you don't fall into the GOTM or the RBCiv spheres? I'm just a plain S.G. player here at Civfanatics.)

*((Gawd no! No clans please! What are we, a bunch of prebuscent 11 year olds playing shooter games??!! I've stopped playing games and stopped going to forums where clans have taken over!))

Thanks for stepping up Sulla, the enthusiasm is strong :goodjob:

I'll echo Rubberjello's comments, both on option #2: same-diff, different Civ (either Rome or Persia is ok), as well as 'eep, no clans'. For those thinking 'Deity?? No way!', fear not! Without the settler and starting units bonus it's mostly just a cost factor reduction, not a crushing REX that we face.

On the cooperation with other active players, I agree with you Sulla. In fact, I dare say that mixing up such participants would be a learning experience for both. I've learned alot from having Cartouche Bee for example, hopping into our SG's, and have lurked many of the top GOTM players' games -- playing together in the same SG with some of the solid GOTM folks would be delightful :p

Charis

I don't mind the idea of competing groups but I'm not promoting it either. It just depends on your definition of cooperation. If cooperation depends on all players from each group following the same rules, then its fair to say that cooperation has already been accomplished. Its how RB works. All players compete/play and then post a report. I don't see much difference.

I agree with Charis's comment "mixing up such participants would be a learning experience for both". Its why I like to play the SG's. Anyway my 2 cents. I'd like to follow with a lengthy disclaimer but I'll keep it simple and just reiterate that I'm not promoting the idea.

I'd like to keep my name on the table for this one. However, I'm in two SG's now and am trying to limit myself to one at a time. So not a sign up. Good luck.

Yet annother vote for the diffrent civs idea. I'd suggest Carthago and Persia. Rome has a bit of a stacked deck in this scenareo I believe so it would probably be more fun to stay from using them is my guess. Actually, If you had enough for 3 we could use all the non Roman Civs. That sounds like the most entertaining idea to me.

If we do diffrent civs I'd like to join the Carthago team if possible as they are my favorite historical civ.

Ok, so what do we have for a sign up list at the moment? Once we establish the interest level and consolidate our sign ups, we can figure out how many games we need/want.

Now that the discussion is getting to a head count, count me in.

6gntxn

I'm interested and would like to play either Perisa or Carthage haven't used either in quite some time.

I'd be interested in participating as well. :)

-Griselda

I'm interested too.
Rome or Carth. is fine. Difficult level should be deity.
2 days until C&C is available :D

I'd be interested in joining, with the same preference as the others: Same diff, but different civs. Although my civ3 skills are probably a bit rusty (haven't played in months), I'd prefer Deity level on this one for the reason Charis mentioned, seeing what happens in the RBC2 game.

I would play any civ, even Rome, with slight preference for one of Rome's enemies. Assuming Rome has some advantages in this scenario, it could be too easy but it may be interesting to see just how much better compared to the AI a human team can take advantage of their power.

-Kylearan

One of my games is finishing up. I would like to join as well

I too will vote for different civs & deity is fine with me.

I'd love to play, but I've never won at Deity. I can hold my own in Emperor, and obviously have never had the chance to play Demi-god.

I someone will have me, I'll play with any civ.

I am interested to play as well. I am comfortable with playing at Diety, generally favoring bloody means of victory. In my solo games, I have only played Chinese, but I have expanded my exposure with SGs, so any civ is cool for me.

Yea Gods, there has been a rapid response with much interest! I even had to go into Notepad and draw up a little chart of who was in and what their preferences were. :) Here is the preliminary rosters I've drawn up, which can be changed if desired. My goal was to mix up players who hadn't met before where possible and balance out players I know are skilled with those who are perhaps less experienced. All games are on Deity (trust me, the difficulty is easier in these scenarios than in the standard game). Let's see how this works:

RBC3: Ancient Mediterranean Mayhem

Team A: Carthago
Sullla*
Nad
ToddMarshall
Kylearan
Greebley

Team B: Persia
Charis*
Rubberjello
hotrod0823
Sir Bugsy
gormdragan

Team C: Roma
Griselda*
6thGenTexan
Belisar
Speaker? (confirm if interested)

Players with the little star (*) icon are the unofficial captains of each game, responsible for setting it up and keeping it moving. This isn't intended as a slight to anyone; I simply have to choose players I've known for a long time to be captains. Roster orders can be shuffled around as much as desired, of course. Carthage and Persia are the first two teams to see what the large, non-classical civs experience in this scenario. Rome is the third team so that we also have the exact opposite view as well, and to make for meaningful Rome/Carthage comparisons. If there are more signups, it may be possible to create a Macedon team as well, though that would probably be pushing it.

The goal of every game is to achieve domination before the time limit is up, barring that simply to win the game (have the highest score when time runs out). Games may start as soon as teams are ready, though it might be a good idea to wait another day or two for everyone (especially non-Amercians) to get their hands on Conquests. This is not intended to be a competiton so much as a shared investigation of one scenario in detail, looking at it from multiple perspectives. Good luck to all - may you all be able to end your games with the words Veni, Vidi, Vici! :D

Woohoo! I made the list. Although from my rather limited experiences with some of the players, Team A looks a little "stacked". ;)
But if it is not a competition, then no biggie!

Excellent, glad to see you're back and on top of things Sulla. And yes, I guessed right on this one getting a good number of signups :P (I would still give 50-50 odds of seeing a Macedon squad form, actually) BTW, I can vouch that "Griselda" plays a very mean 'Rome' indeed!! :hammer:

I'm excited to see fresh blood on the Persian squad, and with those yummy immmortals, gormdragan, you can bet the Macedonian soil will see much blood shed upon it. I didn't see anyone on 'B' who doesn't have the game yet, so current plan would be for me to start it (tonight likely) and use the order Sulla listed. I can delay however if needed and don't want to dash out far ahead of another team -- it will work best I think if we're not reading what our enemy civ will be doing 400 years from now.

I would ask that anyone on the roster of either team familiarize themselves with the RBCiv rules and disallowed exploits (although most already know this). The only issue in doubt is how 'seed corn' works in a conquest-setting. Sulla, would you mind choosing a fixed rule on that for this game? (See the discussion in RBC2 about this. We chose a 'buy no more than one worker per civ' rule in the BC era to make it clear, and this was a DG game. It won't be clear til much later if that had a bad impact on our foes) It sounded like no one had any real problem whether that was zero, one or two, but it's good for multiple teams to be playing under the same 'constraints.'

Also we like to here a "got it" within 24hrs of a turn posted, then up to 48hrs more if needed to play out the turn, so that the game doesn't drag. With lurkers and others reading the accounts of different civs it's also good to keep the pace moving well in all games. Since this is a 'historical' conquest and the maps are fixed and readily known, would I be right in assuming it's ok for players to read the threads of the 'other civs' -- or we do it like previous A/B/C games where you don't read the other 2 threads until your game is finished? (Either way is ok, again it would be good for Sulla to clarify)

The taste of mortal (nay, immortal!) combat shall soon be upon our lips... :p

:king:
Charis

(PS at Rubberjellos' comment... I can't speak for Carthage or Rome, it should be a good matchup, but... Macedon is going to to pulverized to Jello! :hammer: Oh wait... they have the Hoplite :eek: Just wait til we get iron though!)

One question:

Is it better for players to have some knowledge about the scenario before starting?

Or is it better to play "blind" like a normal SG?

I realize some people will already know the scenario, but for those of us that can choose, does it matter one way or the other?

Originally posted by Sullla
Team C: Roma
Griselda*
6thGenTexan
Belisar
Speaker? (confirm if interested)
Yes please count me in.

I vote for zero worker buys. I have played several scenarios in Conquests (but not this one!), and the Diety(ish) level AI does much worse than in the standard game without its additional units (especially its workers).

I'm going to play the game blind having never seen the map before. It will make it more fun, but may result in some weeky moves that my teammates can ridicule. :D

I also vote to have all teammembers be able to read all 3 (4)? threads during play.

P.S. A link to the RBCiv exploits page might help out some of us with foggy memories of reading it once a long time ago.

RBCiv No-Nos (http://realmsbeyond.net/civ/etactics.html)

As I mentioned that above, I was about to write (link is found on the very first post in this thread) but thought it too obvious :lol:

Realms Beyond Exploitative Tactics page
http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/etactics.html

"Speaker is in da house!" :D

On workers, I'm fine either way, and if folks who've played more than I with the scenarios suggest that the AI is already in trouble without their unit bonus, it does sound like zero is the way to go.

I would probably enjoy this most playing mostly 'blind' -- although I've been doing some history reading. It seems Persia got trounced and their capital of Perseopolis burned to the ground in this war! :( Then again, the real Greeks had Alexander the Great, and here they just have... AI. :goodjob:
My slight preference would be to read all threads too, since we're not in identical starting positions/civs anyway. (Though a delayed gratification of holding off reading is fun too)

Charis

If team C needs a fifth, I'd love to play.

Standard spiel: Beat Diety (non-variant) with regularity, have Conquests already, have not played any of the Conquest Scenarios. I have way too much free time, and Greebley can attest to how much I talk. :)

Completed JB1 SG (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=66389)

TMcC, there was that one time you went 12 hours without posting :eek: On a saturday night too. Go figure.

I was rereading the explot list...

The "throwaway cities" exploit seems to disallow abandoning a city and immediately building another in the same spot. I am thinking mostly of the late game when AI culture overlaps quite a bit. Am I correct on this? Not that it will be a problem. I like keeping cities in general rather than a raze/abandon and certainly don't mind keeping them all. It just suprised me as I thought that replacement was an age-old civ tactic.

There were a very few things that I personally feel are exploitive that were not on the list. The palace rank exploit (where putting your palace out in the middle of nowhere is actually of beneift) and using a short mobilization to speed up non-miliatry builds being the biggest two. Hopefully the first is actually fixed in conquests.

I do like "non-exploit" games. It makes the wins more satisfying :)

There were a very few things that I personally feel are exploitive that were not on the list.

The RBD exploit list was last updated before PTW came out. It's worked for us so well since then primarily because players have worked to uphold the spirit of the law rather than trying to take advantage of things that are clearly exploitative, but not on the list. A read through the list should give people an idea of the style of play that we were seeking to encourage when the rules were drafted, and that's the most important thing to keep in mind at the moment.

In the Epics, the "no spoiler" rules force each player to make judgement calls. Here in a succession game, at least we have the ability to discuss "grey area" moves with the team before we go forward. :)

I don't know whether Team C composition is my call atm or Sullla's, but I don't see why we wouldn't want to have a fifth. :)

-Griselda

Abandoning does not mean razing. Raze to your heart's content. The Throwaway Cities exploit involves a form of "delayed razing" using the Abondon City command, where you defeat the function of enemy cultural control of their own territory through new loopholes created when they added the ability to abandon a city at any time. If you aren't going to keep the city, then raze it WHEN you defeat it. Otherwise keep it. Just don't "capture" it, move your settlers and units through the cultural zone, then abandon it.

Hope that clarifies. :)

- Sirian

Thanks Sulla for setting this up and putting some thought into creating the teams! :goodjob: And I'm sure you will provide information about historical details for the ignorant ones among us while playing. :D
(Okay okay, I'll better try to find something on the net about this subject until my copy of Conquests arrives...)

Since we're playing different civs, I think we should be allowed to read the other team's threads. Being kept in the dark about the other team's progress was fun during the last competition, but discussion between teams and cross-posting would be very interesting, too!

Sir Bugsy, don't worry about Deity. Not only will this scenario not feel like regular Deity, but also being part of a team will reduce the effective level of difficulty somewhat, especially with your excellent team partners! :hammer: And if you feel comfortable on Emperor, now it's the perfect opportunity to try Deity. :)

:( :( :(

It appears that the release of Conquests has been put back a week in the UK and many other countries :( I'm immensely disappointed if not particularly surprised; after PTW I kind of expect this from Atari.

Anyway, I still want to play in Team A but I may have to be skipped for the first round and placed last in the roster. Very sorry about this

It looks like I am too late to sign up. Maybe if a fourth team starts I can join in or something. Or maybe I can sub for a European player while they wait for the game to arrive.

It also would not be the worst thing for me just to watch this one.

Which ever happens, happens.

Ridge

I'd be kind of interested in doing a Rise of Rome conquest, too, but I want to at least wait until RBC2 and/or LotR8a is over. Too many games at once = burned-out Arathorn = once less Civ3 player. If there's interest in a Mycenae (is that right?) game, maybe to start after Thanksgiving, that might be good for me.

Or, like Ridgelake said, it wouldn't be the worst thing for me to just watch this one....

Arathorn

Ridgelake: with Sulla's permission, you are welcome to take my spot. A week delay might mean I miss more than one turn, and who knows if Atari will put the release back even further in the UK.

Originally posted by Sullla
4) Something else I haven't thought of! :p



I realize this is way off topic and posted a few days ago and the entire point about diety cheap legions is a good idea, but has the idea occoured that we have two succession game teams with, say, four players for carthage and four players for the romans? I guess it would be more like a multiplayer game and the bonus is lost for the shield-cheap legions, but still something I consider interesting.

So Conquests is delayed in whole Europe and not only at the store I ordered from? Oh grand. :mad: Hopefully me ordering an imported US version will leave me unaffected at least from any further delays of European versions.

So like Nad I would have to be placed last in the roster and maybe skipped once. Unfortunately, since I'm on the same team as him this might be problematic. If you all want to get started and don't want to wait on us Europeans, by all means drop me from the roster and insert other interested players instead, although I really would love to play both this scenario and with you people. :(

-Kylearan

Thanks Kylearan.

I too have reread the RBCiv exploits list. I understand dastardly conduct is accepted. :hmm: The one item I'm thinking of is starving or pealing off workers from a newly captured city. I do this often, and the reason I do it is because the AI does it also. Am I correct in my thinking?

I agree whole-heartedly with all the rest.

The difference between honourable and dastardly tactics has more to do with RL ethics than problems with the game. Dastardly tactics aren't "broken", game-wise, but they are nasty and can affect your reputation with other civs. Exploits are "broken" or over-powerful game moves and are therefore avoided.

Intentional starvation is dastardly, but not not broken, so it's fine in most games. I don't recall where slave workers fall as regards honourable play but I'm certain they are at worst dastardly and not exploitative.

Originally posted by Sir Bugsy
The one item I'm thinking of is starving or pealing off workers from a newly captured city. I do this often, and the reason I do it is because the AI does it also. Am I correct in my thinking?


Yes. The AI does do it. We have proof of it to our poor city of Theveste in our Succession Game with Carthage at the following link: TH5 - Cutthroat Capitalist Competitors (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61671&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=8) . (Bottom of page 8) Every turn, we saw the pop decrease down to 1, and when we finally did conquer it, there was no conscripts or forced labour. They were systematically starved.

P.S. I have a PBEM partner in Germany that got his Conquests Expansion with no problem yesterday from a local retailer.

Originally posted by Charis
Then again, the real Greeks had Alexander the Great, and here they just have... AI. :goodjob:

:lol: Very funny really !!! :lol:

It would have been nice to play with so great players, but I have limited free time now, and don't want to be burnt out on Civ too. I guess I'll play the Conquests on my own sometime... So I'd rather sign up for a standard RBC game in the future when I have more time and when there will be a nice variant on the way. Will still lurk your games, folks !

krys, excited by the C3C shipping, but refraining from playing thousands of games at the same time, so as not to be burnt out !

The AIs intentionally starve down captured cities now? Nice to see that they've actually tried to improve the AI and not just added more units, wonders, civs and scenarios! :cool:

While this change is not the most important item on my personal AI improvement wishlist, it gives hope that there are other, more significant changes as well like better tile improvement algorithms, entertainer/lux slider management, building settlers only in size 3+ cities, ...

-Kylearan

EDIT: Wait, the game you linked to was PTW. Are you sure they starved Theveste down intentionally? I've never seen that before.

Since Theveste was so large, when they captured it, it was without a cultural expansion, so they did not have enough tiles to work to keep it fed. That's my take on what happened at least. I don't think the AI intentionally starves.

Actually, it's more likely that Theveste in TH5 starved due to uncontrollable unhappiness. The city was in the middle of our territory, so it would've been cut off from any luxuries that the conquering civ (Egypt) had. And of course all the other happiness buildings are cultural buildings, which get destroyed when a city is conquered. And we know the AI doesn't use the luxury slider. We'd also drafted from it a couple times. Finally, the city would've had a huge level of "stop the aggression" unhappiness for the conqueror.

All that adds up to the AI being unable to work a single laborer in the city, so it unavoidably starved all the way down to size 4. The AI doesn't intentionally starve conquered cities, but it can work out for unavoidable starvation to be beneficial anyway.

Short answers to some questions floating about.

- As far as workers go, let's use the principle from RBC2 of allowing ONE worker purchase max from each civ. That shouldn't prove to be too damaging for a Deity game.

- T_McC is added to the fifth roster spot for Team "C".

- This game will probably be more fun to play if you haven't already scoped it out in detail. I, umm, kind of can't do that though. :p

- Just to clarify, dastardly tactics from the RBCiv list are always in play if desired for this scenario. They consitute "evil" or "immoral" play, but are within the scope of the game. Exploitative tactics are never in play, and represent flaws in the programming of the AI. No team will be using any exploits.

- There is no problem with reading other team's threads. We're all playing different civs and this is not a competition. Also, keep in mind that the whole Mediterranean is already revealed on the map at the start of this scenario, so it's not like map information is an issue or anything.

- We'll make due as best we can on the issue of a later shipping to Europe. Those players can be shifted to the back of the rosters and there will be no need to rush through the first couple of turns to give them time to get copies of the game.

- I'm planning on getting my copy of Conquests today and starting the "A" game soon. Charis and Griselda can open their games at their own discretion (they don't have to play the first turn either if they don't want).

Regarding AI starvedown, I noticed this occurring in my last turn in LK56. England flipped one of our towns when it was size 3. A couple of turns later it was size 2 and then went to size 1. By the end of my 10 turns, it was back to size 2.

It is possible that they whipped it. But my interpretation is that it was starved down.



Edit: Sulla, could you start a 4th team with me and Arathorn on it to play Mycenae. Game to start after Thanksgiving.

Nad, thank you for the offer. With as many Europeans as there are, it probably makes the most sense to delay the game starts so that everyone is in.

Ridgelake,

Yay! I was bettin' that we couldn't stop short taking just 3 of the 4 civs and leaving Macedon in the cold :hammer:
Sounds like we may have to wait to read how that one goes with a peri-Thanksgiving start, but that'll work :P

:goodjob:
Charis

BTW, with that response from Sulla, I will open the B game shortly, but will be asking folks for strategic input before playing the first turn, as there are many options on the table.

Sirian,
That makes a lot of sense. I get it now. Thanks :)

Can you pen me in with Ridgelake & Arathorn for the after Thanksgiving start. Thanks.

Clarifying again; these should more or less be the final teams. Also, let's keep in mind that the final civ in this scenario is Macedon - not Mycenae. :lol:

RBC3: Ancient Mediterranean Mayhem

Team A: Carthago
Sullla*
Nad
ToddMarshall
Kylearan
Greebley

Team B: Persia
Charis*
Rubberjello
hotrod0823
Sir Bugsy
gormdragan

Team C: Roma
Griselda*
6thGenTexan
Belisar
Speaker
T_McC

Team D: Macedon
Arathorn*
Ridgelake
Coffee
[Open Spot]
[Open Spot]

Team "D" will open in another 1-2 weeks, while the other games will likely start this weekend. Team captains should feel free to open game threads at their discretion. Good luck to all and have fun! :goodjob:

Pencil me in for a spot on the D team. If others show up and want it, they can have it. I'm still deciding whether to jump into Conquests, but it's looking more and more like I won't be able to avoid it. :)

I would also be interested in a spot on Team D, if it's still open. It has been a long time since I played an SG, RBD8 actually (Sirian's Viking SG). But I have been wanting to get started again, and thought this would be a great way to get started on the Conquests. I just got the CD, and have started Mesopotamia, but held off on Rise of Rome for now.

Ack you beat me to it Justus_II :)

If you need any spares, consider me wanting. Any spot really.

Grimjack

Team D: Macedon

Arathorn*
Ridgelake
Coffee
T-Hawk
Justus II
Grimjack (alternate/spare player)

Start whenever you all are ready...

Just checking back to see if the Macedon game is still a go, and when we would be getting started. (I have a four-day weekend, and after reading all the other threads, I'm ready to go!).

@Justus. Well you are ahead of me on that score. I've read some of the other threads but still have more to do. Arathorn did mention a possible start around Dec 1. I would expect to see it then. That works for me as I'm away for the next few days anyway.

I must say, having just spent enormous effort to wipe the blights formerly known as Macedonians off the map, that I'm quite eager to see how they do when led by humans (not only that, but a powerhouse team!)

How will the hoplites fare? How will the army fare? Will they share the same fate as AI-Macedon?! :eek:

Good luck :P
Charis

After Thanksgiving means...after Thanksgiving. I'm leaving in like 5 minutes for the weekend with no Civ3. I hope to start it when I return.

Arathorn

Charis,
I think if Team D, plays 50% better than the AI played Macedonia in our game, Persia will be toast. Things like actually placing three hoplites in an army, rather than one horseman. :lol: Those Hoplites have the potential to be very unbalancing in the early game in the right hands.

Bugs

Well RBC2 is over, a quick but fun win with the Phoenicians.
It demonstrated the following:
- In the Conquest scenarios, assume nothing! Lots of subtle but important changes
- In a scenario, the difficulty lvl is FAR less important than in a regular game,
as the AI doesn't get a huge jump on the player with no cities and more settlers.
Demigd is probably too easy across the board.
- In a scenario the games can be far quicker, and you're "in the action" much faster
- Being aggressive in exploration and sailing can have a huge benefit in tech/gold

We're playing Rise of Rome in a 4-way game exploring all the main civs. In my mind,
this is working great - I'm enjoying seeing the other civs perspectives, and especially
want to see how my 'locked war' foe will do in the hands of humans.

Anyway, with the players asking what's next, let's discuss that some.
(The end of post has 3 specific suggestions for those who like the bottom line.)
I would like to hold off Fall of Rome until after all Rise of Rome factions are
done. That scenario has *Elimination* as the goal (lose 8 cities to die), with
victory point scoring as well. There are eight barbarian tribes to choose from,
and all are Mil/Ind. The barb tribes have their own special research path, which
includes sacking, pillaging, and capturing those they defeat. The Roman empire is
actually two nations, East and West, each with about two dozen small cities plus capital.

Vizigoths are NE, Huns far NE, Celts NW on islands with city/settler mix, Franks N,
Vandals NNW, Anglo-Saxons far N, Ostrogoths ENE. The Sassanids (Persians, SE) are
special as they're not Barbaric, and have starting cities, not settlers. The Designer
Diary says that due to being compressed by the huns that "The Visigoths in the Fall of Rome
scenario are certainly one of the toughest start positions in the entire expansion pack."
(Anyone who knows me from Diablo knows I'm a huge fan of Goths :D )

- The Middle Ages follows up this action, in the Europe of Charlemagne. The goal is to
return holy relics to Jerusalem, and there are many civs: four Christian, four Muslim,
four Vikings, and the Byzantines. Mass Regicide and reverse capture the flag.

- Mesoamerica brings the 'features' of enslavement and ritual sacrifice, with the
Aztecs, Mayans and Incans as options, among three other dying tribes. Domination and
Cultural victory are the paths. The latter is with a twist -- culture pts are gained
not only by bldgs but by ritual sacrifice of captured foes. (Not just the Mayans either)
Incans are far South, Aztecs far North, Mayans in the middles. There's a lot of jungle
but jungle with 2.1.0 and easier to road.

- The Age of Discovery brings together Europe and the Americas, with a choice to play one
of the three American tribes for a cultural victory or one of five European powers seeking
to win by victory points returning treasure back home. Portugal begins in a GA, while others
have a UU to get one.

- Sengoku in Japan stands alone, as a Regicide game with eight player choices among 18 civs.
The map, tech tree, and and richess are all extensive. Looks like a good scenario.

- Napoleonic Europe allows the player the choice of 7 nations, with France for Napoleon or
Scoring is Victory pt, or domination victory.
There are locked alliances, *France+Denmark, *Brits+Norway+Portugal+Naples, and unaligned
*Austria, *Prussia, *Spain, *Russia, *Ottomans (and non-playable Sweden). This puppy is all
about combat. Cities are well-developed with special units and few techs to research.
There's the option of modding the scenario to make a lesser nation playable, at
considerable increase to difficulty. (Especially Denmark :P )

- WWII Pacific is naval combat at its best, with four sides, China and Commonwealth as
well as Japan and US. Victory pts are key to this scenario.

Some scenarios seem more suited than others for playing several teams as several
civs at once. Sengoku strikes me as a good potential RBCiv 'Epic'. The Pacific cries out
for at least two teams. Fall of Rome, Discovery, Middle Ages and Napoleon have more good
playable choices than we would have teams to field without burnout :P The Rise of Rome
is unique in its 'team' appeal in that each civ has a blood rival to compare itself to.

The following come to mind for next RB game following Mesopotamia.
1) Hit scenario 4, Mesoamerica, playing as the Mayans. If there are more players with
interest, we can do a second or third civ.

2) Stay in sequence, let the Roman duo complete first, and try a regular game now
with a new civ (other than Incans, featured in RBC1). Due to the major bugs in
the current version of the game, I'm not looking to go TOO far off the deep end
in terms of variants or difficulty, especially something that would be a long
drawn out struggle and time consuming, only to fall short due to a bug.

3) Play an open SG to help folks not overcommit themselves :P In the lines of Sirp's
old open SG games (Aztec jagged game, Egyptian war chariot crush) I would propose
picking a new UU that people have griped about as being too weak, or one of the worst
because of a despotic GA -- and making military action with that UU a focal point of
the game. Three-man chariot comes to mind as very solid, Endiku warriors also could
be potent, and the most doubtful of them all -- the Chasqui scout used offensively.
Sirp himself remarked: "The Chasqui scouts...uhh...I'm really dubious about. I'd
like to believe they could be really useful, but I just can't see it."
That's like waving a red flag in front of a bull! :P

Thoughts?
Charis

Personally I would prefer to play the Mesoamerica scenario next and then Fall of Rome once RBC3 is done. I'm up for anything however.

One thought on Mesoamerica. Forbid the one city culture victory. Victory comes @ 2000cp. With sacrificed workers @ 40cp each, this one is way too easy of a win. You can manage the win using this method without even seriously engaging the other playable civs. Not worthy of an RB game IMO. The other victory conditions should make for a good game.

I'd prefer to stick with the scenareos until the hideous FP and gpt bugs are fixed. I've no real prefernece, other than I'd also like to save sengoku for a patched version since it is the biggest and most like the standard game.

Mesoamerica is fun, but as Bam-Bam says, play it for conquest, or it is way easy.

Grimjack

Team d is underway at:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70382

Arathorn

Originally posted by Skyfish


Would the GOTM team play by the RBCiv rules ? :groucho:

:lol: I played in the GotM23 SG (PTW team) and I'm currently playing the GotM24 SG (again PTW team). In both cases the PTW team have played RBCiv honourably :)

Sorry for the late response but I somehow managed to miss this thread the first time round.


Ted

My votes and observations:

Next: "Fall of Rome" with multiple teams just like the "Rise of Rome" scenario. I think it worked out great and by reading all 4 threads every nuance of that scenario can be discovered. A friend of mine already played "Fall of Rome" and mentioned that the "8 cities captured then collapse" rule is very intriguing, as suddenly the game goes from bitter conflict to a massive land-grab phase, then back into major conflict again.

Mesoamerica should be next.

I'm playing the Napoleoniac Scenario via a PBEM game, and am having a blast in it! Diplomacy is the name of the game in that one, and it sure reminds me of the original "Diplomacy" board game a lot, for some reason! :D

In coming up with an idea for the Mesoamerican scenario, initial
comments suggested:
- Overall the scenario is not a very hard one
- Unrestricted a culture win was extremely easy, but yet...
- Culture by sacrifice is the fundamental core of the game, and
avoid it would be missing the design of the scenario, easy or not
- Forbidden palace is of course broken, as are gpt deals, until the patch

I tried a OCC as Aztecs quickly, and found myself a factor of three
lower in culture than the main power of the game, and really had no
way whatsoever to counteract that. (Going bonzo for war from the very
first turn may have seen different results)

So in looking at these items and looking at the civopedia, here's
the design for this scenario.

RBC 4 - The Mesoamerican Mayans - A 5CC Scenario for C3C (Deity level, normal aggr)

Among the Mayans rose an influential but somewhat deranged leader known
as Weed-Jaguar, who had become far too fond of smoking a certain pungent weed.
He had a grand vision and philosophy that became the driving force for his
nation. "Our nation will have five great cities, one for each of the great
tribes on our continent. Chichen Itza is our native capital, and our own people
will shed their blood in devotion to make it great. We shall create one city for
each other tribe, and there will the blood of the people of that tribe flow as a
testimony to our cultural greatness and superiority. We shall show our supremacy
by being the envy of all other nations. In doing so we will neither take nor
receive credit from any nation, for amongst the wickedness of man, only gold is
of value, not a promise of later riches. Finally, we must enact a Blood Cult govt.

It's a 5CC so that: i) the lack of FP will be a total non-issue, ii) we'll need to
wage significant war to enslave workers to sacrifice, so limiting ourselves to
five cities will help keep this a challenge, iii) we have a chance with five cities
to develop enough culture for a civ-culture 7K win. *EACH* city however must have
a culture of 1000, making things a lot more interesting! That means that every civ must
be hit to reach 1K per city, that if we wait too long and let one civ die out things
will get very rough for us, and our capital will need to make some attempt at wonder
building to see it's own culture reach 1000. All settlers must come from capital.

Each of the non-capital cities must have a Sacrificial Altar, while this is not allowed
for the capital (which will never sacrifice any units). Pop-rushing is ONLY allowed in
the capital, and in fact at least one pop-rush must occur there (the blood of the native
tribe representing each city and ONLY that blood must be spilled.) City borders must
have zero overlapped worked-tiles. The cities closest to the capital SW and SE will
be designated for the two lesser tribes closest to us, while the two cities past them
will be designated for our biggest rivals, the Aztecs (Westernly) and Incans (Easterly).
We do not wish any foreigners to trample unwanted across our homelands, so when we have
enough units for it, we'll institute human walls to block entrance to our lands.

Here is our starting city, Chichen Itza.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/RBC4-MesoamericanMayans300ADstart.jpg

We're scientific and industrious, starting with Masonry and Craftsmanship.

To players - read the Civopedia carefully, the differences are enormous. There will
be no irrigation, for example, until the next era. With Espionage near end-of-game
comes a 5.3.2 Silent Hunter with Stealth. Enslavement can be carried out by our
Jav Throwers, the Aztec Jagged Warriors, and the Incan Chasqui Scout. All are 40 hp,
2 attack. Jav has 2 def, Jaggs have 2 move, Chasqui have all-terrain-as-roads. One
third of their victories will capture (enslave) a unit, to be used for sacrifice.
Note the jungle is two food, one shield! And we can build a jungle road in just 3 turns.
Keep in mind there is a turn limit of 175 turns. First player will go 15 turns,
then 10 turns each after that. (In this scenario we can buy workers, but may not
sacrifice them if bought)

As for what other games next, I'm expecting Fall of Rome, preferably multiple teams. Hopefully Sulla will return soon, and he may have thoughts on that. That wouldn't start til all Rise of Rome teams are done.

Roster:
I'll start it off, we're looking to have 4-5 players total. Sign up if interested. (Preference to those who have already expressed interest, e.g. Speaker, who would like to join) With the turn limit, we're really talking 3-4 turns per player, so I don't think it should overtax anyone!

Charis

PS First turn is done actually, I'll open thread as soon as I get the signups and any comments/requests for rule modifications.

Slot me in at the end please. This week is finals at my University, and I will be going home for winter break on Saturday December 13th.

I'd be interested in playing RBC4. But I have zero experience in 5CC games, so if more experienced players in that variant come along, I wouldn't mind being bumped too terribly much.

Sign me up!

With LK56 over and my leaving LK58 for computer reasons I am up for RBC4!

Hotrod

Sign me up please :)

Grimjack

Ah damn, I hate different time zones. ;) This game sounds very interesting with these variant rules. With RBC3 soon to be over, I would have liked to play this one. But it seems I've slept too long... Ah no problem, I'll just lurk then.

-Kylearan

I'm glad to see the solid response to the Mesoamerica game. In fact we've got seven interested - Charis, Speaker, Rubberjello, Ridgelake, Grimjack, Hotrod and Kylearan. While this game could absorb one extra, we're now at the two game mark, so I have a few thoughts:

i) Parallel game "Marauding Mayans", also as the Mayans but going for domination. (No 5CC obviously but domination is the only other active victory condition)

ii) Parallel game "Merciful Mayans", still 5CC, but going for 2K cultural single city win with no sacrifice allowed. If my OCC test is any indicator, it's rather likely you would have to wipe out one or more opposing capitals to avoid losing!

iii) Two parallel games, same rules as here (5CC going for 7K cultural win) - one as Aztecs and one as Incans. Each one has the advantage of a single 'front', but the disadvantage of needing to conduct war quite a bit farther from home in order to get enough enslaved workers to sacrifice for that tribe's city.

So... are there 3+ more people who want to play a variant Mesoamerican game? If so please responsd with your interest, and both existing signups and any new people should mention if one of the above multi-game scenarios sounds good?

Charis

I would play either game. Both sounds like a lot of fun. ( Domination would be the harder one I guess.. )

Grimjack

I would vote for the 2 parallel games (Incans/Aztecs). Or the domination one would be fine also. I don't care which team I end up on.

Count me in, although my copy of Conquests ($14.99 from Amazon) isn't scheduled to get here till right around Christmas. I'd most prefer a domination game and least prefer a single-city victory.

As for upping the difficulty of an easy scenario, how about playing on Sid?

I vote for option iii) - this approach had been very interesting and provided a lot of insights with the Rise of Rome scenario, so I'd like to see this again here.

I would also play the domination game if necessary, but the single-city victory game only reluctantly.

I don't care either which team I'm on - the two civs look similar enough.

-Kylearan

Oh, and one more thing: I would prefer not playing on Sid. Playing RBC3 and lurking the other Conquests games taught me that the scenarios differ so much from normal games that Deity is enough for a challenge, for me at least.

I'll play Sid with you T-Hawk.

I'd like to play - either side of option iii sounds good, or domination as a distant second.

Sounds good - I like the idea of playing each of the civs with different teams, and with only 3 on this scenario, that's easily done!

We'll go with option iii- three teams then, each 5CC going for a 7K Cultural win, and each of the five cities needing at least 1000 culture. That's going to mean lots of fighting and capturing units rather than cities. One game will be on Sid so we'll see if that makes much difference in a scenario. (It will more so than on the Mesopotamia or Rome scenarios in any case)

A - Mayans (Deity): Charis, Grimjack, Kylearan, Dwip
B - Incans (Deity): Hotrod, Rubberjello, Ridgelake
C - Aztecs(Sid) : Speaker, T-Hawk so far

B and C need one more, or even two. If needed A can add one more as well. Game time limit is 175 turns with first player taking 15 and all other turns going 10, so this should be a light snack scenario. (Even with only three players you would get five player turns)

The Sid squad got Aztecs rather than Incans because the Jaggies move of 2 may help more than move 1 with all-terrain-as-roads due to the retreat ability. I've played the first Mayans turn already.

I'll see if any more sign-up (solid experienced players only for C, plz), then I'll start the A-thread with the Mayans. The two C guys be a little delayed on their first turn, but that's fine. If any changes are needed to what's listed above, let me know!

Charis

Charis,
I'll go for one of the Deity teams, just as long as I can be towards the end of the rotation. And they'll take me.

Bugs

I'd love to try Sid. But I've promised myself a break so good luck with this series.

edited..

Well it won't start until Xmas. My advisor says thats ok and I'd really like to try. Perhaps you could put me at the end of the lineup. Thanx.

If it's not too late for one of the Diety teams, I'd like to join in too. I was going to wait for the Fall of Rome teams, but this sounds interesting with the options.

I am interested to try game B.

For the Sid game, do we need to play a 5CC variant? Sounds like it'd be tough enough even without variant restrictions...

Bring on the sacrificial lambs. :devil:

Does any one no if sacrificing hurts or helps happiness??

Anyway, is this a go. Team B is ready to Roll !!???

Sacrificing doesn't affect happiness, but the Sacrificial Altar itself is a negative happiness improvement, turning a happy into unhappy - in fact a city must have a temple before building an altar.

Status update:

A - Mayans (Deity): Charis, Grimjack, Kylearan, Dwip, Justus
B - Incans (Deity): Hotrod, Rubberjello, Sir Bugsy, Gormdragon
C - Aztecs(Sid) : Ridgelake, T-Hawk, Speaker, Coffee

@Bugs, Coffee, Justus, Gormdragan, welcome aboard :hammer:

@T-Hawk: Welcome to C3C :) I'm not clear on how hard you want it - first you asked to pump difficulty to Sid, then say it's probably hard enough without restrictions. I'll leave that up to you to decide, as either way your game will make an interesting comparison. In every other 'scenario' the difficulty has been only a tiny factor, as the civs get the same starting units no matter what, so the diff only affects the cost reduction. If Mesoamerica is no different, 'Sid' will translate to no more than Emperor-plus if not restricted. Now if unlike the others the starting units did depend on difficulty, then yes, it would be hard enough even without restrictions. If it were me I would go with 5CC/Sid to match the others, and we'll get to compare what difference difficulty makes. But if you want to go further out, drop the 5CC and go for domination -- whichever you guys prefer is ok, this is a "loose" series than an Epic game. I tentatively moved Ridgelake over to C because: i) your team is short, ii) he's qualified, and iii) he didn't object to Sid level ;p

I'll post the thread and A game now. 'B'/Hotrod, you guys are ready to roll, so start it yourself - Deity level, normal aggression, and there are no other options to tweak. (Well, try to interject the word Weed into your leader's name!) C guys should determine for theirselves 5CC/7K or unlim cities/domination. (Or an intermediate like 5 *built* cities, rest captured), and Ridgelake should confirm if he's ok with that or wants to shift over to 'B'.
There will be a delayed start for C anyway, due to those player schedules.

Good luck all!
Charis

I was hoping it would translate into a diety plus game making it a good introduction to Sid. :hmm:

Originally posted by Charis
I tentatively moved Ridgelake over to C because: i) your team is short, ii) he's qualified, and iii) he didn't object to Sid level ;p

Ridgelake should confirm if he's ok with that or wants to shift over to 'B'.
Good luck all!
Charis

LOL, Charis. Well, i) is certainly true. You are certainly kind to say that ii) is true. (Hope that you are right). and iii) is also true as I was debating it with myself. So I guess that pencils me in to team C. I just hope that I don't let down the team......

Originally posted by Ridgelake


LOL, Charis. Well, i) is certainly true. You are certainly kind to say that ii) is true. (Hope that you are right). and iii) is also true as I was debating it with myself. So I guess that pencils me in to team C. I just hope that I don't let down the team......
Since no one I know of has beaten a non-elimination Sid game, I would have to think that you're in the same boat as the rest of us Ridgelake. I mean what's the worst that you could do? Ruin our trade rep in the MA (see T-Hawk in TH5), ask for skips due to huge amounts of work, putting more pressure on your teammates (see me during finals, lacrosse season, etc.).:lol: :D

Originally posted by Ridgelake


LOL, Charis. Well, i) is certainly true. You are certainly kind to say that ii) is true. (Hope that you are right). and iii) is also true as I was debating it with myself. So I guess that pencils me in to team C. I just hope that I don't let down the team...... You'd have to out do my :smoke: move in RBC3d also. It takes skill to lose 4 armies. :lol:

When I posted suggesting Sid difficulty for the scenario, I was thinking without additional variant restrictions. Why do we need to invent ways to make the game harder when there's another huge difficulty level? :)

Going from Deity to Sid reduces the AI cost factor by half - that's a bigger jump than from Regent to Deity!

Does the 7k cultural victory require having double the culture of the next highest civ? If so, it'd be tough-ish even on Deity unrestricted. If not, I think an unrestricted game racing the AIs to 7k culture on Sid could be pretty interesting...

BTW, we need a captain for the C game to make the final decisions on this. Since I haven't even gotten C3C yet, Speaker, would you like to take the helm?

I will gladly take the helm, but we will have to wait until Sunday to start. Is that okay with everyone on team C?

Fine with me; I won't have C3C until Christmas +/- a day or two anyway. :)

; I won't have C3C until Christmas +/- a day or two anyway.

Gee :eek:
Santa sure aint what he used to be :D

Maybe Hoboken is hard to find and/or the US-Santa was trained by the CIA

:lol:

Is there spot left for team B? I would be more than happy to join.

Sunday is fine by me.

I have serious doubts this scenario is winnable via domination on Sid. Maybe it's comparing apples and oranges, but after RBC3 I am a bit suspicious about the domination limit given the small amount of time. And in this scenario, there's even less time than for the Rise of Rome, *and* you want to try this on a higher level of difficulty? Sid means your rivals will probably get to *the* mega-unit of the game, the silent hunter, a lot earlier than you do, so while I have great faith in the playing skills of team C, I think you'll need a lot of luck here.

On the other hand there won't be any high-defense units once the silent hunter enters the scene, which greatly advantages the human player, and maybe this scenario won't grant the AIs the extra settlers so the pop limit can be reached easier. This will get very interesting. :)

-Kylearan

All right, now we're movin'!

I had to admit, I have too little knowledge about Sid to know what level of pain team C is in for :p My comments have been extrapolations based on two things: i) for other scenarios it has seemed that Demigod lvl equated to somewhere around Monarch in perceived difficulty, and Deity-scenario no harder than Emperor, and ii) the big step-up for deity over emperor is not the cost factor but the extra *settler* and bonus initial units. Lacking those, the actual difficulty lvl is far less - then again I didn't know Sid's cost factor was THAT bad. I look forward to seeing how it goes -- Speaker may have to make on-the-fly adjustments if the rules don't work well at Sid.

As I mentioned to Kylearan, T-Hawk is right in that 7K cultural win also requires double the culture of the next civ. (I know that's "standard" but for some reason didn't think it applied to this scenario) That's going to make things potentially a bear even on deity. After the warning comments from lurkers that this scenario would be too easy, now it's looking kinda beefy! (Again, Sid guys, think about your odds and options and decide what you want to go for)

Status:
A - Mayans (Deity): Charis, Grimjack, Kylearan, Dwip, Justus (started)
B - Incans (Deity): Hotrod, Rubberjello, Sir Bugsy, Gormdragon (good to go)
C - Aztecs(Sid) : Ridgelake, T-Hawk, Speaker, Coffee (starts around Sunday)

Hotrod, let us know if you would like to add Kuningas as a fifth or if you would prefer to stay at four.

Charis

Sundays good. Please place me at/near the end of the lineup.

I will be able to start tonight after I finish up LK58. I think 5 is fine.

I will post a thread later with the roster / map / etc.

Heads up for RB players not keeping tabs, and to the wider audience here in the SG forum: We've started the first succession game for Galactic Civilizations. Interested parties can Go Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72311) to check it out. :)

OK, now back to your regularly scheduled C3C discussions.


- Sirian

I wanted to summarize the RBC4 Mesoamerica rules, including some clarifications and a minor change on captured units and the capital...

Variant Rules for RBC4
- Only 5 Cities, period, the capital plus four cities founded by settlers coming from the capital. No worked-tile overlap plz.
- Only the capital may pop-rush any buildings
- We may never give nor take gpt in any trade
- We must shift to a Blood Cult govt at some point (even if it's right at the end)
- Win condition: 7K culture win (+ double culture of next civ)
Style points / secondary win condition: 1K culture in EVERY city
- There are FIVE other tribes, so each must be designated as the sacrifice center for ONE other tribe. This occurs and is fixed when the first foreigner is sacrificed in a city - that city then can only sacrifice those from that same tribe. Note that a sacrificial altar with no blood spilt on it would be an abomination to the deities, so don't built an altar unless you have an enslaved foreign unit in hand, or are sure you will before the game ends or that tribe disappears!
- We don't like foreigners trampling in our lands at all. At some point when a full mil-unit roadblock is possible, set one up or plan to give defiant 'get out' orders.
- 'Bought' workers should be renamed and used for actual work, NOT sacrificied. Captured workers otoh must be sacrificed. Please limit early worker purchases to 1 per tribe. Later after you've gone to war with a tribe if they want to sell you more, that's fine.

(The change is that the capital may have a sac altar and sacrifice units of the "fifth" foreign tribe. I was smoking :smoke: in counting the opponents on my earlier post!)

Reminders about some key points from the civopedia, etc.:
- We'll have too few cities for a Forbidden Palace :P
- The best way to amass culture is to fight win enslavement UUs and capture as many as possible, sacrificing in city with sac altar
- Later on the Silent Hunter unit rules (5.3.2!), giving a decent but limited window of opportunity for the UU's to do their thing
- Jungle is like bonus grass: 2 food, 1 shield, and can be irrigated for +1f or mined for +1s, road in 3 turns for +1 comm. No death from disease in the jungle.
- Mountains are nice, +1 food, +1 shield, irrigate for +1 food, mine for +2 shields, road for +2 comm! Hills are normal except you can irrigate for +1food. Grass/plains/desert are normal. Rainforest and ocean are useless. Do NOT clear jungles! :p
- Resources are very different. Strategic ones are stone, rubber, llama, exoctic birds. Jade and tobacco are new lux. Cacao plant, maize and salt on the coast are new bonus resources. Note maize is +4 food!
- City improvemenst are different: tambo, ball court, sacrificial altar are quite nice. Some wonders are extremely nice.
- Suggestion: since the capital is best suited to getting culture by other means, it might want to choose the foreign tribe that is weakest (first likely eliminated) or furthest away, as the one it will sacrifice.
- Turn limit is 175 turns.

Charis

Charis, I would like to suggest that the timing of the sacrifices be up to the team. The rules that you are presenting basically forces everyone to wait to build their altars until the very end. Since we are going for a culture game, and alters do provide culture, it seems overly silly to not allow people to build altars early in the game.

Each team will want (need) to use the captured workers for work. By requiring that all captures be more-or-less immediately sacrificed, you force the delay of building the altar.

How about this for instead: "The FIRST Capture of each civ must be sacrificed ASAP. The altar for that civ cannot be built until a sacrifice is available. Subsequent captures can be sacrificed at the will of the team. "

We will almost assuredly need to make many sacrifices to reach the culture goals. But with this change, some very-needed tile improvements will be feasible.

Well said Ridgelake -- you're free to build the altars immediately in any city. I just wanted to make a 'RPG' point that an altar without bloood would be a terrible disgrace, so don't let that happen!

:hammer:
Charis

Congrats and thanks to the folks at Firaxis, Atari and Breakaway for getting the beta patch out tonight! :hammer:

Link to patch (http://www.atarisupport.com/newfaq/civilizationiiiconquests.php?browser=1&pageDisplay=DOWNLOADS)

Each game host will have final decision on whether or not to continue their game patched or unpatched. Since it's a beta, I plan to copy my exisitng directory first and have both available anyway. Unless there's a big flaw though, the changes are so significant and welcome I can't think why any wouldn't move to the patch unless it's nearly done (e.g. Scouting Sid)

Actually, for uniformity sake, I would suggest the two remaining RBC3 Rise Of Rome games continue *unpatched* - they're not far from done anyway.

With Maniac1 it's almost irrelevant, as our rep is trashed for gpt and as we'll never build a FP anyway, but Todd will let us know his wishes. RBC1 Incans would benefit nicely from the patch for the FP if nothing else - so let us know Griselda.

The RBC4 series, Mesoamerica, won't matter much for a and b deity games (no gpt use allowed, no FP), but it will probably be a key point for game C, Sid. In fact I just saw the game started in their thread but not played yet. If T-Hawk notices the patch in time, I hope he can re-generate the game file with the new version - Speaker's call. With game A I don't have a preference, so whatever most folks like is fine with me. If it's a toss up, patch away.

I head out tomorrow morning (health permitting!!) for a nice family-visit long-drive week vacation, and will be out of touch completely until the 31st, so skip me if I come up again in the next week in any game.
Charis

Would anyone who missed the Mesopotamian scenario be interested in starting up a shot at it on Sid difficulty? Or if you played it and want another shot, that could work too... :)

Edited:

Here are some thoughts on games coming up in Jan/Feb:
(All with C3C v1.12)

A) Scrappy Scientific Sumerians (Demigod) - RBC6, now opening
- Must NEVER give in to tribute
- Any foreign unit spending more than 1 turn in our territory must be given the boot
- No RoP or MPP
- May never trade cash for tech (GL, steals, peace negotiations are ok)
- Any sci leaders must be used for an age of science
- Continents 70/30, restless barbs, random climate, std size, rnd non-science opponents
- All victories enabled, but our preferred condition is space launch

B) Fall of Rome (in 1-2 wks)

The Rise of Rome scenario is almost done, with team C on their last turn and team A
within 4 player-turns of completion. RBC4A is done, B is in good progress, and C has
a long road ahead of them. It will be time in about a week or ten days to start the
Fall of Rome scenario. It's an elimination game (lose 8 cities and your civ dies)
with VP scoring. There are 7 Barbarian tribes to choose from, most/all Military/Indust,
and one non-barbaric tribe, the Sassanids (Persians). The barbs have their own path which
includes sacking, pillaging and capturing foes. Rome itself is two empires, east and
west, each with about 20 small cities plus their capital. The Barb tribes are the
Vizigoths (NE), Huns (far NE), Celts (NW isles), Franks (N), Vandals (NNW), Anglo-Saxons
(far N), Ostrogoths (ENE). Breakaway designers say that the Vizigoths in this scenario
are "certainly one of the toughest start positions in the entire expansion pack."
Back from my Diablo days I'm a big Goth fan, so I'm going to try the Vizigoths or Ostros.

I don't know how many sign-ups we'll get, but we can target 4 ppl per team and try to
fill up the civs (in order of preference since we won't likely field 8 teams :P )

Vizigoths
Sassanids
Huns
Ostrogoths
Vandals
Anglo-Saxons
Celts
Franks

Three other SG's I would like to run sometime if there is interest:

C) Austrian Fascists SG
We'll unlock the hidden 'extra civ' of the C3Conquests pack, the Austrians, and
their special 7.3.3 cav unit, while exploring the new Fascist government.

D) Revenge of the North Koreans. The Koreans are back for vengeance following their
defeat in RBP2. This time the North Koreans are in charge, and they have vowed to wipe
rival Russia off the face of the planet. To quote Meldor: "I demand a rematch!"
Original game was RBP2 - Asian Rumble: Warmongering Koreans (Deity SG).
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39219
Foes were: Japan, China, Mongols, India, Russia
Map: Small, 60% water Pangaea, 5 billion, temperate, Sedentary barbarians
This seems like a fine mix, and no new far East civs added in C3C anyway.
(First slots reserved for any RBP2 crew interested: Charis, Meldor, Jaxom, Marshall)
Other variant rules: must deny the first tribute demand, and must utilize catapults
in our first ancient war. Turns were episodic, about 20-30 turns per player turn.

E) Hittite Charioteers
A small game with open terrain to see if the new 3-man chariots are any good.

Please respond if you would like to join the RBC6 Sumerian game, if you have any
specific thoughs on the Fall of Rome, or if you have interest in any of the other 3.

Thanks,
Charis

--- EDIT: Running summary of responses

Fall of Rome, no real pref on Civ:
Speaker, Justus, Grimjack, Aggie, Rubberjello (nonCelts), Arathorn, Bugs, Hotrod, 6thGenTexan, Elvis
Fall of Rome, specified pref:
Rigdgelake (Huns), Dwip (Ostro,

Koreans: Speaker, Skyfish
Sumerians: Speaker, Aggie, Grimjack, Kylearan
Austria/Fascism: Aggie, Rubberjello, Bede
Hittite: Dwip

Showed interest but game full: hotrod, Elvis, Griselda, 6thGen

Status:
Sumerians has started as RBC6, and Austria as RBC7,
and RBC8 is Revenge of the Koreans.

Sign me up for the Fall of Rome. I also would be interested in "Revenge of the North Koreans" if you have a spot open.

Sorry double post. Dial-up sucks.

Count me in for the Fall of Rome scenario, any of the Barbarian tribes. I have really enjoyed "exploring" these conqests as part of this group, and look forward to what looks like a real rampage in this one!

I would also like to play Fall of Rome. It is quite an interesting Conquest that demands completely different games depending on which tribe you chose.

Grimjack

I am interested in the Fall of Rome scenario. But I also like to try Austria/Fascism

Count me in for the Koreans or the Sumerians !

Rise of Rome for me. (Any civ except the Celts)
Austria Fascism also sounds very intriguing.

I'm in for Fall of Rome -- don't really care much which civ.

Arathorn

:hammer: the ROMANS! I'll play any of them, but thinking back to history, didn't Attilla the HUN give Rome all kind of trouble? Let's re-enact that one.

I'd like to play more games, but with RBC4c and Maniac1 in full swing, I am already overcommitted.

Sign me up for the Fall of Rome, but please not a lead off slot.

Bugs

Would like to join Austrian Fascists.

Missed out on Austria but would be in for Fall of Rome.

Interested in both Fall of Rome and Revenge of the Koreans.

Include me in the Austrian Fascists and a Fall of Rome team.

6gntxn

Fall of Rome sounds good. Either the Franks or Ostrogoths as civ preference.

I'd go for the Hittite game, too.

Lots of signups for Fall of Rome, we'll get a bunch of teams! :goodjob:

I'll try to update my orig post to keep track of SG and Fall of Rome signups, but let me summarize here:

Roster status (besides Fall of Rome, still looking for signups)
Koreans: Charis, Meldor?, Skyfish, Speaker with Jaxom and Marshall too if they're around
Sumerians: Charis, Kylearan, Grimjack, Griselda, Aggie, Speaker
Austria/Fascism: Charis, Aggie, Rubberjello, Bede, mitsho
Hittite: Dwip, Elvis, 6thGenTexan, Yom, hotrod, Charis

Note!! All these are full - no new signups needed! Please do continue to sign up if interest in a Fall of Rome tribe :D

Game Status:
Sumerians has started as RBC6, and Austria as RBC7,
and RBC8 is Revenge of the Koreans. RBC9 due soon, Hittites.

Charis

Should I sign up again, I thought I was, but maybe I'm not.


Thanks,
Bugs

Charis! Ease off, man, or you'll never make it to the other end of all these games.... :confused: :o

Oh, and sign me up for Fall of Rome. :) Any team is fine, and if anyone else wants to try it on Sid difficulty... :D

Just to be sure, Koreans was full, but I'm in Fall of Rome and Hittites, right?
Sounds good.

Originally posted by T-hawk
and if anyone else wants to try it on Sid difficulty... :D
You know I'm game.:)

Elvis, yes, you're in the Hittite game. In fact.... you're up!! :p

Bugs, you're listed above as in the Fall of Rome series, no problem.

T-Hawk... as you know far too well, I've never ever been accused of moderation! :hammer:

After an 8 day vacation away from computer, and with a very temporary work lull, I'm chomping at the bit for games. :crazyeye:
(But thanks for the caution, history shows that you're correct)

Charis

I'd like to play some more Sid scenarios. :)

I would be interested in Fall of Rome. I don't have a civ preference, so I'd like to be blue. :) (... damned color blindness. Remembers trying to figure out why the Babylonians (in their alternate jerseys) were trying to frag their own units. Turns out they were at war with the Vikings. [Oh, the other shade of grape.] )

Aside: Are the barbarian tribes differentiated by anything besides color? Can they go to war with each other, or is this a locked-alliance scenario?

Edit: After opening the scenario, blue appears to be the Anglo-Saxons. To answer the other questions, this is not a locked-alliance game, and the Barbarian tribes appear to all build the same units. The Abyssinians (or whoever the Persians are in this game) build different units.

I'd be interested in the fall of Rome scenario. Any civ would be fine with me.

Improviser

I'd also be interested in the fall of Rome scenario. I'd like to play with the sassanids (but I would be ok with other civs too)

mfG mitsho

Sorry Charis, the revenge of Korea would be a lot of fun but I don't have Conquest. Check your PMs for details.

Well things are humming along pretty nicely I would say, and there's a lot more coming soon. I wanted to mention some of this and see if there were any feedback.

Beta Patch v1.15
The latest beta patch is available to all (see the thread in the Civ III/Conquests forum). It includes several fixes and particularly, fixes the FP bug and applies a new 'solution'. Under v1.15...
- Corruption is a sum of two factors, rank-corruption according to how many cities are closer to the true capital, and distance-corruption accoring to how close a city is to the nearest of Palace/FP/SecretPoliceHeadquarters (SPHQ).
- FP adds a 37.5% increase to the OCN
- Max corruption in a city is now 90%, not 95%, and with a courthouse, 80%, throw in a Police station too, tis 70%.
- The combo of Palace+FP+SPHQ seems to make communism *MUCH* stronger than it ever was (this needs testing)
- Upshot seems to be to build your FP rather early, probably in a second or third ring city. Palace jumping will no longer be effective unless you somehow keep your total number of cities somewhat small.

Anyway, this patch is "how corruption is intended" and will be the way things are, barring bugs or major problems found. The nice thing is that v1.12, v1.13, v1.15 etc files are all save-compatible, so a person can play any save file with any version. Of course it's best if everyone in a SG is using the same version, but no one is excluded due to this.

For that reason I would recommend using v1.15 in SG's unless they're near completion and you don't want to mess with it. v1.15 should be considered usable (preferable?) in RBC5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

RBCiv Epics
Griselda will have more to say soon and I won't steal her thunder, but before long expect an announcement on the RBCiv forum about the re-starting of the Epics games for Conquests.

Korean Revenge - RBC8
Thanks for your patience, I had to hear back from Meldor and Jaxom before proceeding. Expect an exciting turn 1 and roster posting in that thread in a day or so.

Fall of Rome
Again, thanks for your patience. That multi-team scenario was hoping to see: i) completion of all Rise of Rome games, and ii) the return of Sulla, C3C Roman Scenario expert. It will not languish on account of either one of these, but that's why you've seen nothing on this yet. It'll happen before long and should be a great game!

Fun and games with new Governments
RBC5 Feudalism and RBC7 Fascism are exploring new C3C governments and are going extremely well. The v1.15 changes in Communism are so extreme it's virtually a new government, and forum discussion elsewhere cry out to give Communism a good test in a real game setting. I'm hoping to do one or more of the following...

*** Austrian Fascists (RBC7) - We look forward of course to making it to the Industrial Era, Nationalism and a govt tech. Assuming we do so in a manner where the rest of the world isn't already trampled under the feet of our cavalry, here's what I'm hoping to do:
- Shadow Games A and B - on the very turn before anarchy ends I would like to branch out two games. The main SG will press on with Fascism as planned. 'A' will enter and remain in Communism and see how effective it is for warmongering, and 'B' will be the undisputed champion of PtW - Republic. This should be a great side-by-side test of the three governments for balance and taste. (We're presently at Metallurgy, iirc)

*** Feudalistic Mongols (RBC5) - In this open SG we just got Cavalry and have been running roughshod over the Celts, but have two TOUGH nuts yet to crack. IF we haven't won the game by the time we're at Nationalism+govt techs, I will do a briefer shadow game-set going a limited number of turns in Communism, Fascism and Republic and see how they compare to Feudalism.

*** Byzantine Communists
It's one thing to take a game where the play has had one govt and objective in mind and then revolting to another one, but often the setup just isn't right for the new one to shine (ie back in RBD5 French Artillery we experimented with a revolt to Communism that was abysmal). Communism, especially in its new incaration, should work especially nicely in far flung disconnected empires as you might see in a domination-goal arhipelago. And what better civ to try this out with than the Byzantines and their Dromon?! (I've been itching to try these :P ) As opposed to a 'comparison game', this one would have in mind a early and permanent shift to Communism in a large empire with a domination goal. This will likely be a Demigod level game (Deity?), only taking players who have beaten Demigod or Deity handily.

Monarch level Game
I've gotten some PM's from folks who love following this series but don't feel ready for Demigod or even 'variant Emperor' games, wondering if we ever ran a Monarch difficulty game. Along with a clever Monarch/Emperor player I'm cooking something up along those lines that would be fun, no previous skill requirement at all except it will likely exclude those who have beaten Deity ;) I'm guessing from the number of lower diff games that there would be interest in this -- we'll see.


For the shadow games the players of the respective games will have opportunity to do the shadows (since that's the most "level" comparison) and Republic guru T-Hawk ( :wavey: ) is also interested in taking a few shadow turns. If and when that happens I'll post in here and see if we can use other slots. (Of course you guys are free to do the same offline! Take the pre-end-of-Anarchy game and run for 30-50 turns or so in a different government, then report back how it went)

Like I said, lots of activity abuzz... :hammer:
Charis

Charis,
Great ideas, great concepts. It is creativity like this that makes Civ and the Civ community so much fun. I would like to thank you and all the RB Epics folks for staging your games here and opening up new worlds for all of us lesser skilled players.

Bugs

Ruh-roh. That Communism game looks way, way too fun. And with RBC9 and the Fall of Rome game, I shouldn't. But I find that I must.

Assuming Demigod level, I'd like to play.

I would like to try the communism game also, I like the Byzantines, and rarely use communism in my normal games, I would really like to see how it works with the changes.

Charis, I'd also be interested in the communism game... (especially if I did not get onto the Korean game roster)

JMB

Sign me up! Communism is preferred, but I would be happy to join the Republic team as well.

If it's not already full up, this lurker would like to get in on a Monarch(or low Emperor) game. It would be my first SG and watching the RBC games has really made me want to try one.
(I also can't wait for the next Epic. )

I had a crazy idea for a game, inspired by the opposite of LK's "Slow Moving Civ" game...

RBC10 - Speedy Spanish Strikers

The goal of this game will be to win by domination without ever having a single unit spend a turn in enemy territory. The primary way to accomplish this will be Bombers combined with Conquistadors. Earlier war with Conquistadors and/or Cavalry is also possible; we'll restrict such actions to attacking no more than one enemy civ.

I'm thinking Demigod difficulty, standard map, pangaea.

Anyone interested?

T-Hawk,

I suspect that the game that you describe will show how overpowering bombers are. It is basically a pure builder's game until flight. No wars. Conquistadors can't effectively wage war independently. They come way too late for their a/d values to be of use without assistance. Cavs, maybe, could do some war. But even that would be tough. Then, assuming you have oil, you would roll over the AI with lethal bombardment.

Not too sure what there is to gain from this setup. But I could be wrong.

Anyway, Charis, when will the alternate games from the fascist one start?

I am interested T-Hawk.
Having Conquistadors go crazy pillaging oculd be some fun. Building a Conquistador army would be something I could look forward to :)

Grimjack

T-Hawk, I'm interested.

Charis, what's up with Fall of Rome? If you're too busy/occupied to handle organizing the teams and starts, I'll volunteer to take over.

If anyone else is interested in the Speedy Spanish game, post up. :) I'll start a thread for it probably sometime after the Super Bowl this weekend.

Incidentally, I had another idea for a Communism game: target a 100k culture victory. This would let us see the building power of a far-flung communist empire on a reasonable and practical scale. For a military building path, it takes too long for the Communist power curve to really overtake that of a palace-centric government; by the time you get factories and power plants really cranking, the game will be over. But culture can be built earlier and with less expense, and cities can contribute immediately with their first few improvements (especially captured cities, via whipping.)

Feudalism would also work well as an interim step in this game. 100k is best achieved with many small towns, and using whipping for rushing works very well for that and meshes with the later communistic theme. Note that a large number of towns is no longer an obstacle for Communism; with the new FP/SPHQ rules, the optimal cities number leaps to *160* on a standard map!

Would anyone be interested in that, in addition to or instead of the Spanish game?

T-Hawk,

The Kulturny Communists sounds challenging

I'm interested

T-Hawk and others,

Thanks for the reminder on Fall of Rome. The real reason for the hold has been that the Rise of Rome is *STILL* not finished. Speaker is on the last turn in the last of the four games, so we're just about good to go. (Had I known all four would take THIS long and that Sulla would STILL not be back, well.. anyway... :P )

I'll go thru the sign-ups in this thread and assign some tentative teams and start the Fall of Rome shortly then! :hammer:

The cultural commies sounds like a great way to get a handle on the effectiveness of communism. A game like the Austrian one would be over long before you knew how well it was doing, or even before you got many Police Stations built. The 100K win is *TOUGH* due to the 'twice next civ' restriction, as you well know. What diff and civ were you thinking? I think I'm in on this one - the goal is probably better than a military one. :goodjob:

What else is up?
- First C3C Epic is now running, and 1-2 more are in advanced stages of planning
- Korean Revenge is well underway. Austrians and Mongols are done, and Hitties are hurting in a big way. Sumerians and Incans are ongoing but under control.
- Mini-shadow of Austrian Fascists about to start
- Monarch diff game ( :wavey: at Ducki and others) - I might go with the Byzantines there (unless you were thinking about using them for Commie game, but you'll want a relig and/or sci civ for that?) I'll start this after the Fall of Rome, to avoid delaying that further.

Charis

OK. Charis, I'll take the helm on the Cultured Communists game (letting you concentrate on other things) and run it as RBP10.

Signed up are:
T-hawk
Bede
Charis

Interested in the previous version of the Communist game were:
Dwip
Justus
JMB
Ridgelake

I will open a thread for it now and continue discussion there so as not to clutter up this thread too much more with it.

You people have too many good ideas ;) I like the Culture Commie Challenge

Count me in for the Commie Culture game as well! :whipped:

Let's not forget that we need to take a run at a panagea Sid game.

The time is nigh for the fall of the once mighty empire of Rome! :whipped:

My thanks to all for their patience, as this has taken a while to
get off the starting blocks (for many reasons). This post is to summarize
the state of sign-ups so far, to suggest/discuss specific civs to be played,
and to see if we have any more signups. It will be followed up with a new
thread with rules and last opportunity for signups for anyone not following
the RBCiv SG Discussion thread, then we'll have the several game hosts open
their own thread and go. Version will be 1.1.5 C3Conquests.

I would hope that after the Rise of Rome scenario, people are ready to:
- READ through the civopedia to see what changes have occurred...
- THINK through and DISCUSS "implications" so they don't get burned
- COMMIT to finishing their team's game without letting it drag out,
especially for the reason of "things aren't going well"
- CHOOSE the right civ/difficulty, as this one is NOT balanced! Some
civs have a much harder time than others
- DECIDE whether as a Monarch player they really want to signup for a game
2-3 difficulty levels higher than normal.

In the upcoming announce/signup thread, people can post their own
observations on scenario rules, so we don't miss something obvious.
In Rise of Rome, Ivory for Numes, 4-move roads, 4-transport galleys
and a few other items really threw some teams for a loop! Also, Fall or
Rome is an ELIMINATION game with Victory Points, so know what that means!
Check out the warlord unit, Heavy cav, and the power of the Scourge of God wonder.
It would seem that being the one to capture/raze an 8th city for a given civ
will eliminate them (and all their cities) from the game - doing so to 2-3
other civs is probably enough VP to win. If however either the Western or
Eastern Roman empire is allowed to survive, they WILL have enough VPs to win!
Probably by turn 100-120 the remaining Roman empire will win if not eliminated.
Kindly, the AI loves to settle tiny towns with little defense. Getting the
other barb nations to help beat down Rome is probably very important.
Some have claimed higher difficulty may not be harder, as the other barbarians
are likely to be much more helpful vs the established Roman army. Chances
are good you'll pound one-half of the Romans and need alliance to see the
second taken out. See designer diary for more info:
http://www.civ3.com/devupdate_fallofrome.cfm

Sid is doable in this scenario! (Good news for T-Hawk :P SirPleb reported
beating Sid on Fall of Rome as 'straightforward' playing the Persians)
The Vizigoths are reported to be (among) the hardest civs to play here.

Tentative game/assignement list based on expressed interest so far:
(Suggested host is first player listed, and games are in rough order of difficulty)

Solid-to-Tough games (open to any, but Monarch/Emperor experience is a good idea)

Sassanids (Persians) - Emperor
---------
Ducki
Mitsho
Improviser

Anglo-Saxons - Demigod
-----
T_McC
Sir Bugsy
Elvis

Challenging games (Demigod+ players, please)

Huns - Demigod
----
Ridgelake
Grimjack

Vandals - Demigod (or higher?)
-------
Justus
Rubberjello

Franks - Deity (or Demigod?)
------
Hotrod
6thGenTexan

Ostrogoths - Demigod
----------
Aggie
Dwip

Brutal games (variant Deity players only, please)

Vizigoths - Deity
---------
Charis
Arathorn

Celts - Sid
-----
T-Hawk
Speaker
Coffee

Each game can use 1-2 more players, and most could handle 3 more.
With the turn limit in place however, the games will NOT last all that long,
so we can get away with less players than for a normal SG if we need to.

Comments? Switches? Difficulty adjustments? Sign-ups? Bring 'em on! :hammer:
Charis

PS - Looking over current players in RB SG's, the following are players not yet listed above:

Meldor, Reagan, Kylearan, Griselda, Bede, Barbslinger,
JMB, Yom, LAM, Belisar, Gormdragon, Kuningas
Sulla/Marshall/GhostsOfChristmasPast :P

I'd love to play & win at Sid but doubt I could win solo. So heres hoping a foursome can be enticed to play. :goodjob:

I don't mind playing deity. With Hotrod's team, but I'd prefer the brutal variant. Only if you think I qualify for the brutal variant that is :)

Well, I was part of the losing Carthaginian Rise of Rome team, so I quite fancy having a crack at Fall of Rome too. I'd like to sign up for one of the brutal games :o. I have no Sid experience whatsoever, so maybe that would be too tough, but the deity game sounds fun.

If you'll take a note from someone who just finished the Fall of Rome scenario- the Celts are probably one of the easiest civs to play in this. Given that losing 8 cities knocks you out combined with the massive attack/defense ratio favoring the attacker constantly, their island position almost ensures them of being unassailable unless they dangle some 1-pop cities on the mainland (which they have no reason to- you get the VP for a monument just by having a unit there). To continue the advantage, there are 5 Roman cities in England- that's half the number needed to knock them out of play, meaning that if you let someone else start it, it's very easy to mop it up. The only real difficulty is getting someone else to take out the Byzantines.

(And as a relative newbie to these forums and SG games- I'd love to be a part of the Sassanid team, if there's room.)

Enlist me as an Anglo-Saxon, please

Originally posted by Charis

Solid-to-Tough games (open to any, but Monarch/Emperor experience is a good idea)

Anglo-Saxons - Demigod
-----
T_McC
Sir Bugsy
Elvis

Comments? Switches? Difficulty adjustments? Sign-ups? Bring 'em on! :hammer:


I'd be happy to host the game. Now we just need a 4th (or 5th). A few players on the TBD list are familiar with my communication style :rant: and the way in which I foster teamwork :whipped: . Not to mention the long-term strategic planning :crazyeye: and sense of humor :rolleyes: that is a hallmark of my participation in SG's.

C'mon someone wants this abuse! :spank:

:D

P.S. The important thing is that we are Blue.

[Edit] I Knew it! The Right Honorable Reverend Bede just can't get enough from JB3- Iroquois Mayhem (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75809)! Welcome Aboard. I'm out of town until Sunday, so we won't start until then. Still room for a fifth.

Challenging games (Demigod+ players, please)

Vandals - Demigod (or higher?)
-------
Justus
Rubberjello



I'm honored for the opportunity to host a team, been looking forward to this game. Not a lot of variety in the tech tree, but balancing diplomacy and timing when to land the finishing blow on civs should make it quite interesting. Who else wants to Vandalize the Romans?

@TcMc
An honor, privilege, and gift to learn from such a (task)master

Looking forward to it

If there's no rule against double-dipping, can I get in on one of the more "normal" games in addition to the Sid one? The difficulty on Sid is so skewed - chiefly the tech costs, and wonders are also effectively taken out of the game - that playing a scenario can result in missing out on large chunks of the game. In particular, I'm thinking of the Sid attempt in Mesoamerica, where we lost before even getting to the second half of the tech tree. Even if we'd won, it would've been a military win with barely any more gain in technology. I do want to take on the challenge of Sid, but not at the expense of missing a "normal" look at the scenario.

Which one of the "normal" games doesn't really matter. :) Any one on Demigod-Deity (besides the Visigoths) that needs another player is fine.

@T-Hawk,
> If there's no rule against double-dipping, can I get in on one of
> the more "normal" games in addition to the Sid one?

Good thing my name isn't "Timmy" ! :lol: (Seinfeld inside joke there)

Yes, I thought to mention this specifically, but doubted I would get many requests like that. Double dipping is fine, as long as we don't displace anyone's "one" game with a second game. Given that we're trying to field all eight sides here, I'm certain there will be a few open slots left and I'm equally certain they would be happy to have you join in there. So let's see which is least full and add you there.

@T_McC, I like your posting style, if you're less than overfull I might double dip as blue :P (If not there, I have the same desire as T-Hawk not to miss a 'normal' shot at the game)

@Corrado - thanks for your input - I've specificaly avoided playing the game so I don't "overlearn" too much and skew things, but I appreciate that comment. Sensing that Celts weren't one of the harshest ones, that's why I put it down for the Sid game. Now if they want to be MORE brutal they'll have to speak up, but after RBC4's Sid game, I would be cautious about that. I'll mark you down for Sassanids.

@other recent - I'll put down Nad for Vizigoth deity, Bede as an Anglo, Justus tnx for confirming; Aggie you're qualified for any, btw I don't know enough about Ostrogoths or Franks or Vandals to know if they'll be challenging or brutal. Perhaps Ostro on deity for your game?

One extra comment via a PM by Ridgelake --
Huns game will probably run on Deity level rather than Demi.

Charis

EDIT -
@Aggie - sounds good - you'll be the Gothmeister :P
@Arathorn - thanks for checkin' in

Regarding double dipping: What about me being in the Otrogoths as a ' normal' game (demi) and also in the vizigoth (it's not that I want to be in all your games Charis, but the other brutal one is too brutal for me :) And vizigoth has Nad :) )?

Just wanting to check in and verify that I've not fallen off the face of the earth (despite LotR12's extended absence) and would be happy to participate in ONE game and am happy to not be leading it. Vizigoths on deity sounds great.

Arathorn

A Vandal checks in (and starts looking around for more potential Vandals!)

A note about the Celt Sid game. While I do not doubt the high talent of the team in its ability to take out Western Rome fairly easily from it's safe start on the "Sceptered Isle", I predict an Eastern Rome Victory on points as the end result of that game unless your partner Barb Civs get very lucky. You have Geography and time working against you. Even if you have solid control over the Western half, it is a long, long road to Constantinople with your single move units and with your erstwhile allies blocking the few roads available, while the Victory Point totals rack up for Eastern Rome. Good luck!

I hadn't signed up at first for this scenario because I wanted to limit myself to two SGs at a time. But RBC1 is nearly over and with its current speed counts only as half anyway, so I like to join the Fall of Rome as well. :p

I have no real preference which civ to play. And with my somewhat mixed SG record so far, I'm not sure about my abilities either, so just put me in any team that needs more players and where you think I won't screw up the team too much. :crazyeye:

-Kylearan

Aye, I would like the Hun game on diety.

I don't know when these games will get started, but an FYI, I am not going to have time to play this one until Sunday, Feb 22. Not sure how that information falls into your plans, though.

Thanks again for organizing.

Ridge

I'm in and will take a look at the scenario before we start up then decide on difficulty. Any and all comments welcome.

BTW I think a couple more players would make it a better game. I think 3 should be a minimum.

Kylearan: If your interested in the Franks then you can be added to our roster :)

Hotrod

Just checking in. I'm fine with the Ostro team.

Although I've kept track of the RBCiv SGs on here, I haven't fired-up C3C in at least two weeks. I'm going to pass on the Rome scenario, but thanks for the invite.

Its maybe little soon to tell but it doesn't look as though Sid will get played. I'm good with that as I have some rl tasks to do. I'll pass then, thanx for the invite and good luck.

Okay, it's the Franks for me then - looking forward to play with you, Hotrod.

I just hope we'll get at least one additional player. I'm not too fond of a fast-rotating three player game.

-Kylearan

PS - Looking over current players in RB SG's, the following are players not yet listed above:
Meldor, Reagan, Kylearan, Griselda, Bede, Barbslinger,
JMB, Yom, LAM, Belisar, Gormdragon, Kuningas
Sulla/Marshall/GhostsOfChristmasPast :P

:cry:

Could I jump into the Sassanids game?

And has anyone ever tried playing as Western/Eastern Rome in this scenario? I once edited it so I could play as Western Rome, but didn't see it through all the way due to boredom. The first few turns were pretty frantic, trying to ensure that none of my precious cities were captured/razed.

@Skyfish, T-Hawk,
If you're still looking to sign up, we could use another couple players on the Vandals game! I've been looking at the start, decent area, but it looks like we will have to fight through some rivals to even get to either Rome. Should be interesting!

The Ostrogoths also need new recrutes :)

@Skyfish - Dang it! In compiled that list I did it in two places and got the copy paste wrong :eek: I'm sorry - I did have you in there, really. :(

I think some of you are misreading T-Hawk's comments. He *is* doing the Sid game, but he will also be filling in an open slot in one of the, er... less extreme games :p

Once the games are public, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see 1-2 more signups per game if you say you're still looking for more. Also, if a game ends up with two I'm sure you'll get a double-dipper to help you out -- I know that's too small to be safe or fun. (I'm going to DD on one, hoping for Ostrogoths but will see if there's a game with a bigger need before signing on)

I'll post the current rosters, assign letters and open a general announce/rules thread for Fall of Rome either tonight or tomorrow, so we can get started this weekend. :hammer:

Thanks for all the interest,
Charis

Sign me up for any of the more challenging variants, please. I have no real preference for a civ; the Franks or Ostrogoths games most likely conform to my play level though I wouldn't say no to the Visigoth version (the Visigoths are free to say no to me though ;) ).

I have played in a few deity SG's, and my latest solo game was an Arabic deity game where I later discovered I had accidentally set AI agressiveness to to 'most agressive' - the last AI standing is being mopped up as we speak.

WB Jack :cool: You are most welcome in the Ostrogoths!

It's ok for me with the sassanid game. With Casear-Augustus (what a name?) and Corrado, I think we are pretty full, aren't we?

mfG mitsho

I think I'd best pass on this game (I need to limit myself to two games. Of course, my games will likely finish up and then then there won't be any games opening for awhile because everyone is playing this scenario... ;)) Thanks for offering me a spot though... I'll be reading the games with interest.

JMB

I wouldn't mind trying the Anglo-Saxon game. I would be taking a big step up from my normal difficulty, and if that is a problem I have no issues sitting on the sidelines and watching.

Btw. Has anyone thought about worker buys in the scenarios, as most tribes start with multiples... I looked at the A-S start and this issue is entirely relevant as there is a first turn buy available.

Alright, it sounds like the Anglo-Saxons have a full roster with Kabuki joining the fray. I'll try to start the thread tonight, or tomorrow morning.

Hopefully the other games will start to fill up soon.

@Charis - Would have been fun to have you join us. Maybe next time. Or maybe this time if the other two members of the team don't realize they are playing!

I guess this will be RBC12-a.

Roster
T_McC
Bede
Kabuki
Elvis1985 (correction from earlier post, lot of Elvii running around)
SirBugsy

T_McC,

I'm glad you guys are all set. To avoid cross posts and double lettering (since you can't effectively edit the title), the game
letters should be pre-assigned. I'm just now posting an overall announce thread, and list the following:

A) Vizigoths - Deity
B) Celts - Sid
C) Huns - Deity
D) Vandals - Demigod
E) Franks - Deity
F) Ostrogoths - Demigod
G) Sassanids (Persians) - Emperor (slots full)
H) Anglo-Saxons - Demigod (slots full)

I think we have 3 for each now, so although some games could use a pair more, we're ready to go!

Good luck all!
Charis

I volunteer to run RBC12F (Ostrogoths), but would it be OK if someone else plays the first turns? I haven't played that many Conquest. If no-one volunteers I'd like to wait, read through a couple of other RBC12's and then start up.

I'd play the first turns Aggie, however I do have a bit of foreknowledge (having already played this scenario as the Franks, Vandals and Celts). Not about exact resource placement though.

Anyway, I'll open a thread with the start for discussion.

Who's captaining the Hun game? Signed up seem to be Ridgelake, Grimjack, and (probably) myself. I've already got the Celts/Sid game to run. Grimjack, you interested?

Hi everyone!

As BreakAway's scenario designer for Fall of Rome, it is great to see all the interest and activity with the scenario.

If you don't mind a designer (who isn't much better than an Emperor-level player) joining in, I might even feel the need to sign up for one of these games. Playing in one would help me follow along and see how they all turn out. That okay?

Originally posted by Gobi Bear
Hi everyone!
As BreakAway's scenario designer for Fall of Rome, it is great to see all the interest and activity with the scenario.
If you don't mind a designer (who isn't much better than an Emperor-level player) joining in, I might even feel the need to sign up for one of these games. Playing in one would help me follow along and see how they all turn out. That okay?
The Vandals would be honored to have you aboard! (Thread RBC12D ) There are only 2 of us so far. So if you feel like vandalising something....????

OK.

Don't think I've played a Vandals game to completion before, so that would be fun. I'll meet you over in that specific thread. Thanks for letting me join in!

Welcome Gobi Bear :wavey:

Well that's certainly an unexpected bonus :P Talk about a unique perspective :hammer: A very direct and good way to get feedback too. We're looking forward to this!

The first listed person was team host, so that's Ridgelake for the Huns. They don't have to take the first turn but should start the thread and do what is needed to keep the game going smoothly.

I'll point out here as well that the 10/turn is a guideline, and hosts are free to modify that. In particular, one civ is suggesting a 5 per turn rate when things get very heavy later on, to avoid dragging things out as happened toward the end of Rise of Rome. Probably not a bad idea -- we'll see how things go.

@Nad - nice analysis in our thread!! That's exactly the type of thought and input I hope comes up in each of the games. I'm hoping as well that there will be differences in the strats between the different civs (not just the obvious Sassanid - barb differences)

@T-Hawk - yes I'm interested in the Celts game, but am delaying a sign-up just to give someone else with no other civ a chance first. Count me in though if it stays quiet :D

@lurkers - my apologies in advance for the virtual-spam nature of opening 8 games at once :p I hope they're good reads anyway.

Charis

Because this might end up being of use to somebody, like me, who will never be able to find all the threads:

RBC12 Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78821)
RBC12A - Visigoths (Deity) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78823)
RBC12B - Celts (Sid) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78853)
RBC12C - Huns (Deity) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78903)
RBC12D - Vandals (Demi) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78829)
RBC12E - Franks (Deity) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78833)
RBC12F - Ostrogoths (Demi) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78840)
RBC12G - Sassanids (Emp) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78838)
RBC12H - Anglo-Saxons (Demi) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78857)

No Hun thread yet that I can find. I'll edit it in when I see it.

Ha! As one who doesn't "subscribe" to threads, I just asked myself how to follow all the RBC12 games without getting lost. Next thing I see, Dwip has compiled a list of links. :goodjob:   You da man!!

-Kylearan

P.S.: :lol:   Of all people, Dwip compiled a list of links? Oh, the irony... ;)   (Sorry, but that will hunt you as long as we're both posting on the same board :p )

I have heard back from Skyfish, who is unable to join us for this one. We have added Gobi, but the Vandal team is still looking for another good barbarian or two! :)

You'll notice that I've gotten a bit better about making them actually work. You may have had something to do with that. :P

The Ostrogoths are similarly looking for another player or two.... come join us as we maraud, pillage and sack our way through the vestiges of the Roman Empire ! :hammer:

I just started the Hun thread. Unfortunately, I am out of town for a week and am having computer problems. See the poll thread for more details. But the thread has been started.

Ridge

Originally posted by Gobi Bear
Hi everyone!

As BreakAway's scenario designer for Fall of Rome, it is great to see all the interest and activity with the scenario.

If you don't mind a designer (who isn't much better than an Emperor-level player) joining in, I might even feel the need to sign up for one of these games. Playing in one would help me follow along and see how they all turn out. That okay?

Well Gobi Bear, now that most of the games are over or close to over, what are your impressions? I know that I enjoyed my turns with the Huns game. I am interested to see what your think of how things have turned out.

We're winding down the Barbarian tribes in the Fall of Rome (hopefully not WRome/ERome, what a brutal start! :P ) and it's
time to start taking a look at the Middle Ages scenario.

Scenario Info

In 843 the great empire of Charlemagne is divided into three parts.
Christian leaders of the Kingdoms of the Franks, Germans, and Burgundians
each have a holy relic to return to Jerusalem. A fourth relic lies with
Alfred the great in his fledling English nation to the north. Play as one
of these four Christian nations, one of four Viking powers, or one of four
Muslim nations, or... as the Byzantines! Who can rule the greatest kingdom
by the year 1453?!

Domination, Conquest, Mass Regicide, VP Scoring, Flips, Reverse capture the flag.

Christian: Franks, Burgundians, Germans, English (Knight UU 5.3.2, Western church tech)
Holy Roman Empire (ToE), Monastacism (lib), Feud (market), Chivalry (Crusader, Templar)
Viking: Kievan Rus, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians (Berzerk UU 6.2.1, Norse tradition tech)
Seafaring, Smithing (factories). Longships move *7* and Zerks are amphibious (yum!)
Muslim: Fatimids, Cordovans, Abbasids, Turks (Ansar UU 5.2.3, Atab learning tech)
Arab learning(lib), Assasination (spy 5.1.1 Siphai 6.3.3), Medicine (aqueduct)
Byzantines - Dromon UU, Byzantine Ingenuity tech
Lost Roman secrets (aqueducts, colosseum), Heavy cav (4.3.2)

* Byzantine tree: Aquaducts, Drafting, Battlefield Med; and Spies (detect Invis)
* Catholic tree: Libraries (called Monasteries), KN Wonder, Bank (=Manor);
HRE Wonder (=ToE + Heroic Epic + Pentagon), ; Crusaders (best defense before Swiss)
* Arab: Libraries, Hospitals (=aquaducts! give also culture here), BF Med; Assassins
* Vikings: Factories (=Blacksmiths), Viking Sagas SM (Magellans + Heroic Epic)
* 3rd era techs offer Marketplaces, Mills, Pikes, Universities, but no Aquaducts.

Variety of traits, mostly MR Christians, MS Vikings, RC Muslsims except Turks and Rus.
Mil-Rel: Burgundians, English, Franks, Germans.
Com-Rel: Abassids, Cordovans, Kievan Rus, Fatimids.
Sea-Rel: Byzantines.
Mil-Sea: Danes, Norway, Sweden.
Com-Mil: Turks.
Non-playable: Bulgars (Byz); Castile, Celts, Magyars, Poland (Chr), Mongols.

The Vikings get their strong UU quickly and rule the sea. Christians and Muslims
get different bonuses, and the latter some strong supplemental units. The Byzantines
are not as poweful in combat units, but can get Espionage, Spies, Aqueducts.
Jerusalem belongs to the Abassids. Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople locations are known.

Nations start with 3 kings (1.1.2, not armies). Cities/troops vary quite a bit...
Franks: 8 cities in place, all size 1 except a size 3 capital Paris. Next to Burgundy.
6 sword, 4 warrior, 7 workers. A lux, horses and iron around, not hooked up yet.
Germans: 8 cities (all size 1 but cap 2), 3 swords, 5 warr, 2 spear, 4 workers.
Burgundy: 9 cities (6 size 1, two 2, a 3) 7 swords, 1 spears, 6 workers, 3 warr
Next to Franks, Germans, the area of old Western Rome, with Rome as capital.
English: 7 cities on island (5-1,1-2,1-3), 4 sword, 2 galley, 5 workers, 5 warr,
and 1 army(!). Holy Grail. Next to Celts in Scotland, across channel Burgundy and France.
Danes: 5 cities (one separated), 6 zerks, 3 longships, 2 swords, 2 workers.
Next to Germans & Celts (turn 1 GA anyone?!? :P ) Close: Burgundy, English, Poland.
Norwegians: 5 cities, 5 zerks, 4 longships, 2 swords, 1 worker. Tough setup!
Two cities scattered west (Ireland), three in Norway.
Kievan Rus: 4 cities (1112) + 1 settler, 4 zerks, no boats, 2 swords, 5 workers.
Start in Ukraine north of Byz. Not on the coast, and no one directly on borders.
Swedes: 5 cities (11122), 6 zerks, 3 longships, 2 swords, 3 workers.
Mostly in Sweden with one more East. One Dane city on your island. Near Poland.
Abassids: 5 cities (23333), 2 Ansars, 3 swords, 3 workers.
Far SE of map, across the Mediterranean Sea from Europe.
Fatimids: 3 size 1 cities + 3 settlers, 3 workers, 3 warrs, 3 Ansars.
SW of map in North Africa, cites are pretty spread out. No neighbors in sight.
Cordovans: 4 cities (1112), 2 swords, 1 ansar, 2 warr, 5 workers.
Spain and Portugal, basically. Far west of map.
Turks: 3 cities (112) but 5 settlers, 3 workers, 3 warrs, 6 horse. Alone, East edge of map.
Byzantines: 11 cities (8-1,2-2,1-7), 3 swords, 2 Dromon, 7 spear, 4 workers. How nice!
*Land bridge* to Middle East. Horses and Iron near, 3 lux. Next to Bulgars.

Cities tend to have two defenders, but AI at Emperor+ diff will have an extra spear.
Techs go rather deep. One end-of-game tech is Religious persecution, which allows
Inquisitors that can see invisible spy units, all move as road, and are 4.1.1, 30 shields.
Best defender later are Swiss Mercs, 2.5.1 (50), after Pikemen (2.4.1, 40).
Upgrade path: Warr-Sword-Crusader, Spear-Pike-Merc, Horse->Cataphract->Ansar/Knight/Sipahi
The second req'd tech, Castle buildings, allows fortifications and river crossing.
Everyone is in *Monarchy* with no better choice available. Game limit: 204 turns.
Techs or not, Zerks/Longships are ONLY available to Vikings, Sipahi only to Turks, Cataph.
only to Byz and Rus, Ansar to other 3 Muslim, (and Keshiks to barbarians :P )

[dance]

Comments

- A lot of VP's for fighting, but the most are for taking relics to Jerusalem.
Wait too long however, and things might end up in disgrace.
- It's cramped, tons of civs, lots of fighting, dense builds
- Vikings don't have a relic but those early Zerks and fast longships are wonderful
- Lots of nice flavor with the different techs and units
- Those with ancient dogs of machines, beware the interturn might be quite long
- Many paths to victory, but none without significant warmongering! :hammer:

Discussion Items

1. The gateway techs cannot be traded, but can be self-researched in 40 turns,
and following techs in the other trees can then be bought/traded. Can steal too.
Unlike Fall of Rome where min rate on Barbarism was a gazillion turns, it seems
part of the intended design to have this as an option. Without getting another
flavor tree, e.g., Christian and Norse nations have no means of getting an aqeuduct.

Do we leave this option available, or take it off the table as a house rule here?

2. Which civs?
There are 13 choices. The turnout on the Fall of Rome series was excellent, and
the Middle Ages is a very good scenario, so it's an option to go "complete" ?!
If not, must-haves for variety include: Abassids, Byz, a Norse tribe, Catholic tribe.
However, even within category there are *large* differences, like Turks/Cordova,
England/Burgundy, Kieven Rus vs Danes. Looking at the civ descriptions above,
there are large disparities. Byz start huge, but they stand directly in harms way.
Abassids have a key advantage of holding Jerulsalem, but will AI even assault it?
Danes look in prime position to maul 3 close neighbors and snag a relic quickly,
while the Rus norsemen are inland with room to expand now, fight later.

3. Minor issues - civs have workers in capital on round one. I'm prone to keep with
one worker purchase per civ house rule, and keep that in place until last era.
Keep an eye on rep, trade routes are fragile. Any other 'special issues'?

Sign-ups
With all the civs and options available, I'm sure we can find a very good game (or two!)
for anyone interested. We can also go down to lower difficulty levels, as we got more
than expected sign-ups for the Sassanid game last time. Please indicate whether
you have a preference for flavor, and/or a specific civ, as well as a difficulty *range*.
Sid extremists (cough, T-Hawk) will probably get first choice of civ, as they will
have an extremely rough time. (Byzantines? Abassids? Danes?)
We won't be starting immediately, and not before 12A-12H finish.

Feedback, questions, and especially indications of interest are welcome! :hammer:
Charis

I for one will not be able to play.

Not sure why exactly but my machine couldn't handle it and I had to bow out of Lee's game.

Good luck !

I wish to confirm Hotrod's statement, and you should probably highlight it in your above text. This map plays like a HUGE map, and not all computers will be able to handle it. (I have one computer at home that can, and one that can't).

Other notes: Keep the optional techs on the table It's a huge, risky decision to go for one of the other entry-level techs, but usually pays off. Why handcuff people?

What I really like about this scenario is that shortage of cash. (just like the middle ages). If you go out and buy workers everywhere, be prepared to live on rice and beans for 40 turns!
I would like to sign up. No civ preference or difficulty level preference.

I'd like to sign up. Emperor or demi-god at the highest. Since I've already played this conquest as the Germans and am currently playing in an SG as the Castillians I would like a chance to play a Muslim or Viking civ.

I'd like to join in. No civ preference (although if there is room for me to play in two I'd like one to be Norse or Muslim). And as for options, I think rubberjello's suggestions are good.

Edit: Civ preference

I am aching for revenge after the stupid mistakes in my last game of this conquest.

One thing about this conquest is that it definitely plays differently depending upon which nation you take.

I would prefer a nordic nation for some serious :hammer: , but I would be up for one of the more difficult nations as well, lyke Byzans with their trouble hitting GA. ( Dromons are good for it, but the closest neighbours are for some reason hesitant about sending out curraghs... )

Grimjack

Ps, No SID for me. I do not think I can handle either the difficulty, nor the time required when you constantly have to make everything just right.

Sid extremists (cough, T-Hawk)

:wavey:

I'll captain a team on Sid difficulty, as I did with Rome, and wouldn't mind a double-dip on a more normal difficulty as well if there's room on a team. I'll take a look at the scenario myself to think about a civ, but the Byzantines look really strong - do they have some disadvantage that I'm not seeing that makes up for starting with all those cities?

I've played Abbassids on Emperor and it was extremely easy with Ansars. In general, Ansars are way too powerful. It might be very well playable on Sid IMHO because VP are rather easy to get from Byzantines. Russia seems to be very challenging on higer levels.
Originally posted by T-hawk
I'll take a look at the scenario myself to think about a civ, but the Byzantines look really strong - do they have some disadvantage that I'm not seeing that makes up for starting with all those cities?
Byzantines may be more difficult than it seems. They have very aggressive neighbors and huge borders to defend.

One annoying feature is that AI tends to settle every square on the map edge. Sometimes their settlers/spears move there and it is hard to see them. Also, traffic is a mess especially in the center. With huge number of units on higher difficulty levels it is extremely difficult to navigate and IBTs take long time.

I'm interested in one of the more challenging games. I have no preference for a civ.

Only disadvantages are:

1) Starts surrounded by civs who are culturally disinclined to like them. ( Germany, Burgundy, Magyar, Abbasids.) Rus and Turks close by as well.

2) Long way to research if they want Knights instead of Cataphracts.

Other than that, they have a good start on any wonder they might want, given the size 7 Byzans. They also have access to more than one lux. Powerful indeed.

Grimjack
( 5.3.2 instead of 4.3.2 )

I'm interested in one of the more challenging games. I have no preference for a civ.

EDIT: I have read the set-up now and like to be in two (if there's room). One as Danish or Vikings and the other as a middle eastern civ

I would like to be in a challenging one (deity/Sid).

No strong preferences on the Civ but some are more appealling:
- byzance
- the boatless russian viking
- the far away english
- the keeper of Jerusalem Abassids

If T-Hawk captains a byzance Sid, i'ld be happy to be in :-)


If my computer manages this scenarios fast enough, and depending on how many people are playing, I could play in another slightly less challenging one.


Jabah

Ps If someone had already played this scenario, are the AIs not too useless with the relics : ie. not trying to send them to Jerusalem with a proper escort (or do they need first to hold Jerusalem before sending them) ??

Since I played this Conquest extensively (and even focused on it during the beta-testing), I feel qualified to make some analysis:

1) Machine performance:
Not a big issue. I ran a 700MHz P3 until recently, and loading/IBT time is absolutely acceptable (clearly less than 10 minutes). There's not much trade, guess that's the reason.

2) Civs and difficulty levels:
The big problem here is (regardless of level) not surviving, but winning before one of the strong AI Civs (Byzantium, Abbassids, Turks; rarely Germany and Franks) hits the 30000VPs. Naturally, since by far most of those VPs are won by unit kill, the higher the level, the faster this will happen simply because of the # of units they can throw at each other. As a rule of thumb, on Regent no AI should win in time, on Monarch within the last 20 turns, Demigod around turn 160-170. So obviously, picking the level a certain Civ should be played is more depending on its chance to win in time, or to eliminate the leading AI Civ(s) before they'll win, than the start itself. Cordova, for example, starts with lots of Luxuries, nice lands, all resources nearby, a weak neighbor (Castille), but without a Relic and far away from the crucial Civs, it's pretty much impossible to succeed above Emperor.

There also is a lot of luck involved when playing one of the Catholic Civs: If the Fatimids or Byzantium razes Jerusalem, you can win this on Deity. If not, Emperor is pretty though already - the Abbassid will secure Jerusalem like Fort Knox; it's their capital, site of a King and the only VP location on the map...by the time a Catholic Civ usually can reach the Holy Lands with Knight forces, there are easily 15+ Defenders in Monarch already. In the LK series game with Franks on Demigod, there were something like 25 Swiss Mercennaries...

Possible levels, at least IMHO:

Sid:
England (if you don't mind a "minor" exploit"), noone otherwise
Deity:
Danes, Norway.
Turks: They have an ugly start, but the Sipahi is the über-unit here, and they are close enough to the real competitors. And they have the IMO best traits for the high levels, MIL/COM. Possibly:
Sweden, though it can turn out in a complete :wallbash: , if your fellow Vikings (attacking them would be suicidal) block the way out of the Baltic Sea for the first 50 turns. Did happen to me :rolleyes:
Franks, Germans: Jerusalem problem.
Demigod:
Abbassids, Sweden, Germany, Franks. Most likely England (one of the very few Civs I didn't play so far).

Pretty tough or frustrating even on Demigod:
Cordova - too far away.
Burgundy, Kievan Rus, Byzantium: the corruption will kill you. City placement was obviously done with the old corruption model, and the FP comes rather late. Especially Byzantium is frustrating on the higher levels, while being a cakewalk on Regent/ Monarch (that's the reason why AI Byzantium does so well). The closest cities in productive terrain will have about 50% corruption with a Courthouse(!) on Demigod...
Burgundy also has no primary source of neither Iron or Horses; while it can settle Iron, there are simply no Horses that won't be claimed by someone else before. And you're sandwiched between Franks and Germans. Definitely a challenge, but could be doable.
Fatimids: Don't worry about other Civs for 100 turns, you will be busy fighting of hordes of 3/2/3 Barabrian Keshiks...see Burgundy.


3) Tactics/ exploits:

Researching the other trees is clearly intentionally, min research time is only 40 turns. I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. Note those Techs can also be stolen.
Relics: The AI won't aim directly for your Relics, that's a myth. Unless the AI Civ owning a relic has access to Jerusalem, it won't manage to return it - it will try, nevertheless. At some point, it will march a rather frightening stack of units containing the relic-carrier towards the Holy Lands, but by no means enough to take Jerusalem. However, don't lose your relic to the Abbassids during the siege of Jerusalem :D
However, if a Civ is running short of units, the Relic can travel anywhere, even as Settler escort. Also, it seems quite random if the AI picks up the Relic at all. Just wanted to point that out here already, to avoid clogging up every thread later.
Exploit: Yes, there is. Initial Diplo, as always; but since you start with almost no gold, the costs for establishing an Embassy take care of that. More important: Who says he have to capture different cities for VPs? You can capture the same city over and over again....works great with London :D . Pump it up to 12pop, gift it to Bulgars (no defenders during your turn!), capture it (no combat - no pop lost), gift it to the Magyars, capture it...you get the point? Giving away a city in order to retake it once later is a viable strategy for the Vikings (they can capture anything, but hold it against the English Army?), but not repeatedly.


I've made 2 mods with Castile and Celts as playable Civs, both are already running as SGs (and since the complete BA staff participates, I think they're worth it ;) ).
If someone is interested, feel free to include them; I also have a Magyar mod.

In any case, I will participate, preferably with one of the more difficult Civs (Burgundy, or Deity Danes/Norway).

More important: Who says he have to capture different cities for VPs? You can capture the same city over and over again.. :eek:
Is that the "minor exploit" you were referring to in order to achieve Sid success ?
:crazyeye:

@Skyfish:
...works great with London

;)

I'm definitely interested, pretty flexible on Civ preference, although the Kiev Rus sounds intriguing, and/or another intense game as the Byzantines (Diety?). Another note, from lurking on several Middle Ages SGs, the AI is quite facinated with settling Siberia/Russia, and it quickly becomes a checkerboard of everyone's 9-tile, unconnected cities. I wish there was a way to make "steppes" as an unsettleable terrain, but as is, I think that is a way for the Rus or Turks to rack up VPs and/or a stream of free workers ;) as a player. However the AI is quite content to get surrounded by settlements.

EDIT: Fixed typos, now that I am back to a 'normal' keyboard.

Wow Doc, great post, thank you! :goodjob:

And yes, sheesh, that is quite an exploit indeed. That's precisely the type of one that as a developer you 'let go' and don't ruin your heatlth or the scenario programming against it, and is at the same time definitely on the no-no list for this SG :P
I particularly appreciate the suggestions on civ-vs-difficulty, although to be honest, the comment "Cordova, for example... it's pretty much impossible to succeed above Emperor." leaves me itching to try Cordova on Demigod or Deity :hammer:
(BTW Doc, that's neat you have mods for the other civs! - and also that some BA's are playing. Just to give normal civs a shot here I'll keep them off the initial list, but: i) I'll be watching your SG's closely now, and ii) if there's interest we could follow up the main series with non-playable-civ variants like RBC12I and 12J.)

It would be great to see the civ variety manifest itself with different win conditions - domination, conquest, and VP. From Doc's comments, it looks like a VP win by AI except for lower levels, so a Regent/Monarch game targetting Conquest sounds like a fun one (Turks come to mind as one option for the Conquest-oriented, or a Catholic nation for Domination)

At least a dozen folks interested in about 16 slots so far, excellent! Keep 'em coming! (And with only 200 turns in the game, we should target 4 players per game - so they each get 5+ player turns.)

Charis

Originally posted by Ridgelake
Well Gobi Bear, now that most of the games are over or close to over, what are your impressions? I know that I enjoyed my turns with the Huns game. I am interested to see what your think of how things have turned out.

I played in the Vandal game and had a great time being the one who took down Western Rome. It was interesting to note the scoring effect on Sid difficulty (i.e. you get tons of points for unit kills when a civ is eliminated because of all the bonus units at that level). We never noticed that in beta testing since the new difficulty levels were added pretty late in the game. We also didn't have that many testers who were daring enough to try Fall of Rome on Sid.

I am playing in the William Wallace SG that Doc started. I'll keep an eye on these Middle Ages games as well. It might be that I have time to fit one more SG into my schedule. It's great to see all the activity with these Conquests.

Currently playing in Doc's Reconquista variant.

Throw me in on any team. I've had a lot of success :hammer: as the Germans or the English, and would be willing to be part of either of those teams; I'd also be interested in playing a bloody Viking, a Muslim, or a Byz. I'm not ready for Sid, or maybe even Deity.

I'll sign up for any game Demi-god and below.

I've never seen the AI anywhere close to Domination; if you want to go after that, I'd suggest the Turks as well (though this removes one of the Deity candidates).

Conquest is a different issue: There is clearly only one Civ with any chance to succeed here, the Kievan Rus. They are COM, which will help, but the more important is their completely unique unit selection: They can build a mounted unit (Cataphract) and Berserks and Longships.
Since there are a number of single-tile islands, only a Viking Civ can take them, but the other three have only the late-game Inquisitor (and, to tell the truth, I never managed to research that far with one of the Vikings) as as fast land unit. True, you can aim directly at the 3 Kings, but those islands will be needed as operational bases. Non-Viking Civs would have to travel in Curraghs for ages anyway.

And Cordova....challenging? Let me point out again that the possible frustration comes from the AI Civs racking up 500+VPs each turn, and you're too far away to have any influence here. If Byzantium slaughters the Bulgars and trades Longbows (and Heck!, a lot of Longbows die every turn) with Turks/ Abbassids, it may jump from 20k to 30k within less than 10 turns - and even if you manage to overrun all of Europe, you won't make that much.

If you want a challenge and fun, try the Turks/ Fatimids on Deity. Even the Vikings will be darn though already, especially if you fail to capture 2 Relics within the first 20 turns.

Edited for clarification.

Bede would like to try as a Viking Demi-God, or Emperor.

I'll join a game, preferably on Emperor or Demi-God difficulty.

Sign me up for anything Diety

Since you are taking sign-ups, put me down for a non-Christian civ, probably not above Demi-God.

I'm also up for any civ on Deity.

I'd like to join Emperor (or maybe Demigod) game as Viking civ

Edit: Pre-mature Posting.

I'd be interested in either Demi- or Deity. Don't have a civ preference.

Hmmm, is anyone Red? [Attack of the Civ2 Barbs! Aw crap, they've got Partisans.]

Oh, heck. Sign me up for something reasonably challenging. Cordova on demi-god or deity (how fast can we race through enemy civs?), Sid/deity for Turks/Abassids/Byzantium.

I'd rather not lead but will be willing to lead a team, if that works out best for the poor organizer (Charis) who has to wade through so many sign-ups.

Arathorn

Somehow I missed that new games were starting. Sign me up for T-Hawks' Sid team.

OK, I took a serious look at picking a civ for the Sid game. I'm looking in the editor, not in the game (can run the former at work unobtrusively but not really the latter :) ).

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Byzantines really do seem strong. They get a lot of cities and resources to start, in mostly decent terrain, and centralized enough to not get killed by corruption. They won't get killed immediately by neighbors, either. The Bulgars are their only significant neighbor; there's lots of empty space to the east and the Abbasids to the south far enough away that they won't threaten the core for some time.. The Cataphract isn't that great a unit, but on Sid, more important are catapults.

The Abbasids are another possibility, but I think they would work out a lot like the Celts did in Fall of Rome - too far away to get credibly threatened by anybody and can just win at their own pace. So, I'd like to pick Byzantium for the Sid game. If we do get piled on, bring it on, and I think Arathorn would love it. :D I haven't played with him in quite some time - would you be up for this, Arathorn? If you're not tired of Byzance from Rome Everlasting? :lol:

I'd also like a second slot on a lesser difficulty game, whatever's available and wants a player.

T-Hawk, a couple comments on Byzantines, I had started a solo game as them on Demigod a while back, and was going quite well, but ran out of RL time and never finished. Some observations:
It's best to go min research on the first tech, but if you actively seek out contacts (use the Dromons) you can quickly become a broker, buying the 'normal' techs and selling them around. Your Byz techs can eventually be traded to the Kievan and Maygars.
Bulgars can be taken out early, even with swords, and should be, as they have needed resources. (Not as easy at Sid, I'm sure).
You will eventually face barbarian Keshiks in the east, so prepare defenses, probably before you get Cataphracts (at least for me).
Cataphracts are basically Knights, but you get them an era and a half before everyone else, so you have a good window of opportunity.
Catapults aren't available until second era, IIRC. :(
Curraghs do NOT upgrade to Dromons, so don't build a bunch and then connect your tar :rolleyes: (um, er, so I heard... )

Anyway, I would love to play the Byzantines again, although I haven't had any Sid experience, if you have room for someone with a learner's permit, I'd be interested.

Thank you all for continued responses... I think we just have one RBC12 Barbarian game to go before we start this. You guys are sick... the first team that fills up is the Sid one! (T-Hawk, Charis, Arathorn, Speaker, and Justus EDIT - Jabah had asked for this as well)

I think we're up to *30* slots requested for signups (that includes a few who asked for a hard one and something less brutal) That will cover almost nine teams, and I think once I organize the exact civ/difficulty combo's we'll get several more signups. I'm not sure we'll quite cover all 13, but I think we'll come close. (I'm in famine mode on active SG games so I'll be in a few on different flavors/civs)

Keep 'em coming, and cheer the Franks on to victory! :hammer:
Charis

Sounds good, T-hawk. It's been a while. And I'll play the Byzantines again. Just let me at those Ostrogoths... :)

Quite the team going there. Should be fun.

Arathorn

Ok, I've gone over all sign-ups, succestions from players and beta testers, and here
is what I would like to put on the table (it's not final, and has some open issues,
but it's a starting point). I was going to wait a bit more, but I think having specific
games and hosts in mind will encourage more sign-ups.

First, tentative game list, in order of category of difficulty

Brutal
Sid Byzantines (need I say more?)
DG Kievan Rus with goal of Conquest ( :eek: )
Dty Turks with primary goal of Domination (another eek! )
DG Cordova (a real bear to prevent others from VP win)

Challening
Dty Danes (will need to invade the mainland with skill)
Dty Franks or Germans (can you get to Jerusalem? not easy!)
DG Norwegians (tough starting position, but you have zerks)

Tough
DG Abassid (will someone defend Jerusalem?!)
Mon Burgundy (no horses, iron, sandwiched between powers)

Fun
Mon Germans or Franks
Emp Fatimids
Emp English
DG Swedes

Even more tentative than the game lists are the rosters. First person is host,
although the host may or may not lead off.

Sid Byz
T-Hawk, Arathorn, Speaker, Charis, Jabah or Justus
Dty Danes
Doc, Aggie, Skyfish
Dty Turks
Aggie, T-Hawk, Caesar
DG Rus
Charis, Jabah,Grimjack,Akots
DG Cordova
Arathorn, Charis, Corrado, Justus
Dty Franks
Ridgelake,...,Charis,Kabuki
DG Norway -- RED!
T_McC, Bede, Ville, 6thGenTexan
DG Abassid
Rubberjello, Yom, Sir Bugsy
Mon Burgundy
Gobi Bear, DeceasedHorse
Mon Germans
Sir Bugsy, Balastulin
Emp Fatimids
OPEN (Doc start off)
Emp English
OPEN (Corrado start off)
DG Swedes **
OPEN (Charis start off, Barbslinger has shown interest here)

Comments/issues/questions
- Sir Bugsy, I needed someone who has SG experience to run a lower lvl game and thought you would make a good choice. Feel free to signup for a DG or Emp game if you wanted more pain (Done)
- The Sid game may be oversubscribed (!?) I have Jabah down for his other request of Rus (and a brutal conquest goal), and Justus as an option on the tough Cordova game. T-Hawk and those two will need to work out roster. (Fixed - Justus goes to Cordova)
- I'm thinking of running one Christian, one Muslim, and one Viking game as OPEN SG's - that is, no sign-ups, anyone strong enough to play on that difficulty can hop in with a "got it" post. That lets us have ALL civs going, but increases the subscribed numbers for the other games
- Ridgelake or any other listed for Deity Frank/German above - or Sir Bugsy, any preferences on Franks or Germany? (Ridge Franks, Bugsy Germans)
- Arathorn, I hope I didn't put you in too much, but I really woulf love to see you in both Sid and Cordova games! :cool:

Check-in questions - A few folks commented in this thread but didn't explicitly ask for a game, plus a few others in rbc12. Any interest in this game from:
Skyfish, Coffee, Kylearan, Jack Merchant, LKEndter, Elvis1985, Mitsho ??

Let me know of any errors, missed sign-ups, or required changes - thanks!

Feedback is welcome!
Charis

Charis,
I'd be happy to run a Monarch game. Thanks for choosing me. I think I would also like one of the more challenging games too. If you could slot me into one of the DG games that would be very cool.

Thanks