Vae Victis

[Palaiologos2]

"Vae Victis" is a scenario that attempts to recreate the fall of the western Roman Empire and the coming of the Dark ages, ending with the advent of the Viking Age.

Its nearing completion, yet i have stuck in creating the interdependencies for the Tech tree(which is 90% ready).
As i'll be away from my PC for about a week, i thought i'd create this thread, read people's comments and questions and hopefully gain the momentum required for finally finishing the techs and as it happens the scenario.

Features: 6 playable civs:

Romans
Persians
Franks
Germans
Scythians
Turks
and the Arabs(AI).

adopting a semi-dynamic philosophy of creation "Vae Victis", allows f.e the Romans to turn Christian in 700AD or in the 4th century(historical) or stay Pagan throughout, yet they can't turn Muslim. Featuring non linear events(f.e Attila's invasion is represented by the "Scourge of God" wonder, available for building by any of the Barbarian civs-whoever builds it gets a couple of uber units) i have tried to increase the replayability of the scenario and make it interesting for every civ to be played with.

The icons.bmp and rules section are ready, and so are the units, goverments, trade goods, terrain, all but the tech interdependencies. The individual techs themselves are ready as well. So are the events(written on paper though). The actuall scenario construction is a trivial matter since it will take me less than a couple of hours-once i disentagle the tech tree that is.

My own scenario creation philosophy has assured that unit and city count will be limited and will be using as many generic units as possible. I will post the map, which i made from scratch, as i think it is an excellent template for any ancient/medieval theme.

The scenario is(hopefully) much more than amassing units and capturing Roman cities. It evolves around state building, trade, diplomacy and warfare-much like vanilla civ. The nomadic civs(Scythians and Turks) are designed to play out differently than the "settled" civs-Romans and Persians. City building, trade, espionage are all freely allowed. Enough said-problem is i don't use word, excell or any other high tech crap, just pen and paper and can't just post the tech tree.

EDIT:How the hell does one post attachments? The old forums were much easier to use

[Palaiologos2]

Got it.


Most events of the era are represented by in game mechanics rather than event driven outcomes. Loosing the west(as the Romans) will actually prove to be benefial in the long run as the smaller size of the Empire will keep the populace happier, the burden of maintaining(building and wonder maintaince is very high in the scenario) all those militarized zones in the germanic frontier will disapperar and it won't necessarily hamper trade and research since all the scientific and gold producing cities are in the hellenized east.
Or for example going Christian too early will cause massive unhappiness in the Empire. All pagan religions are represented by wonders.
Playing as the Persians you will find yourself constantly at a 2 front war-against the nomad Turks in the east and the "Greeks" in the west. As production is of paramount importance in the scenario(units are generally uber expensive and production of the terrain tile has been decreased) you will find certain wonders ultra usefull, f.e "Principality of Armenia"(King Richard's crusade).


This is my first "serious" work since "Hannibal's War", years ago, and i have dedicated a huge research effort in the scen.
Unemployment helps too.

[JPetroski]

This seems like an interesting scenario... Are you designing this primarily for single player, or for multiplayer? It seems that with each civ having unique advantages and disadvantages, this could be a fun MP game.

[Palaiologos2]

I think it would be ideal as a MP. But i am designing following the steps of those old Microprose scenarios. Certain civs are more challenging than others. And all but the Arabs are playable.
Various routes to victory can be followed, depending on the civ. The Germans f.e have a huge hapiness giving Pagan wonder(Irminsull-Michelangelo's chapel), giving them good reason not to turn Christian. The Franks on the other hand have nothing of the sort.But they get better units following the "civilized branch" of the tech tree. On the other hand the loss of the Roman Pagan wonder(St Bach) can esentially be countered by building monotheistic temples all over. Chrisitanity is mysticism, doubling their effect.

[EZRhino]

Cool! It looks like the scope of this one will be wider than other dark age scenarios.

I like the map, although I think it may have too much space in the east for a 'fall of Rome' scenario. But that could make playing the Sassanids more interesting.

I think that the inherent difficultly of a migration age scenario is that the massive internal reactions and demographic shifts, fissions and fusions of tribal coalitions and the wholesale appearance and disappearance of nations means that the starting tribes cannot accurate represent the historical situation at the scenario end (at least not without conglomerating the tribes into very vague groups such as 'Germans'). This is why I think many choose to pick a discreet period where the historical actors at the beginning of the scenario are mostly the same ones by the historical end, although I realize that for ancient time periods scenario designers will still often need considerable 'historic' license with only 7 civilizations. Along those lines I was curious what the start date for Vae Victis will be. The Scythians were already mostly extinct by the 2nd century bce, and so it would be anachronistic to include them as a major tribe in a migration age scenario. Their old haunts were taken up by the Samartians/Alans, the Bosporan Kingdom, Huns, and Goths (later on Bulgars, Avars, Khazars and Slavs).

I also think the premise of choice between traditional paganism and Christianity is interesting. IRC Cyclotron was thinking of something similar for his unfinished vinland scenario. It might be interesting to somehow include the other late Roman cults like those of Cybele, Mithras and Sol Invictus, or early christian heresies, like those of the monophisites, pelagians, or nestorians. Regarding the religion of the Franks. The Franks. as foederati ruling former imperial provinces, significantly assimilated in Roman culture, and with some justification, saw themselves as essentially a continuance of the Roman Empire in Gaul. In that respect they were unlike their cousins across the Rhine who were never part of the empire, thus the conversion of the Saxons to christianity was through the agency of conquest rather than assimilation. My point is ultimately that the Franks shouldn't be able to convert to Christianity unless they occupy Roman territory (this should be very doable using flags in ToT, if you go that route).

[Hans99]

Can't wait to test it, i will play as romans and hold the heathen hammer high

[Palaiologos2]

Originally Posted by EZRhino

I like the map, although I think it may have too much space in the east for a 'fall of Rome' scenario. But that could make playing the Sassanids more interesting.

Thats exactly the thinking behind the "expansion" of the map to the east. Quite frankly, initially the focus was on the east, being an easterner myself. Unfortunately i couldn't expand the map more to the south to include the Persian invasion of Yemen, Aksum etc. The proxy wars of Persia and Rome in the region are quite interesting.

I think that the inherent difficultly of a migration age scenario is that the massive internal reactions and demographic shifts, fissions and fusions of tribal coalitions and the wholesale appearance and disappearance of nations means that the starting tribes cannot accurate represent the historical situation at the scenario end (at least not without conglomerating the tribes into very vague groups such as 'Germans'). This is why I think many choose to pick a discreet period where the historical actors at the beginning of the scenario are mostly the same ones by the historical end, although I realize that for ancient time periods scenario designers will still often need considerable 'historic' license with only 7 civilizations. Along those lines I was curious what the start date for Vae Victis will be. The Scythians were already mostly extinct by the 2nd century bce, and so it would be anachronistic to include them as a major tribe in a migration age scenario. Their old haunts were taken up by the Samartians/Alans, the Bosporan Kingdom, Huns, and Goths (later on Bulgars, Avars, Khazars and Slavs).

Exactly. I had to make some concessions to the starting civs. The Germans represent the Saxons, Frissians etc, i.e the eastern Germanics in contact with the Slavs. I've decided to make the Franks a seperate civ due to their immense impact on dark ages europe. The scythians as you may have already guessed are just a catch all name for the "western" nomadic people (slavs, bulgars, avars), they were reffered to as "scythians" by their contemporaries after all. The goths are represented by a unit buildable by the germans, scythians and franks. The Sarmatians, Alans etc are sadly represented by generic units(Steppe lancers/archers etc). A history geek will recognize them in the gfx used though.
The starting date for "Vae Victis" is 270ish AD, after the 3rd century crisis.

I also think the premise of choice between traditional paganism and Christianity is interesting. IRC Cyclotron was thinking of something similar for his unfinished vinland scenario. It might be interesting to somehow include the other late Roman cults like those of Cybele, Mithras and Sol Invictus, or early christian heresies, like those of the monophisites, pelagians, or nestorians. Regarding the religion of the Franks. The Franks. as foederati ruling former imperial provinces, significantly assimilated in Roman culture, and with some justification, saw themselves as essentially a continuance of the Roman Empire in Gaul. In that respect they were unlike their cousins across the Rhine who were never part of the empire, thus the conversion of the Saxons to christianity was through the agency of conquest rather than assimilation. My point is ultimately that the Franks shouldn't be able to convert to Christianity unless they occupy Roman territory (this should be very doable using flags in ToT, if you go that route).

I had given a great deal of thought on the subject. Not just representing the late Roman cults, but monotheistic heresies and the gnostic religions. Sadly civ2, even ToT, has its limits. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, Shamanism, and Islam had to be represented before any minor sects. At first i tried to use the happiness malus of communism to represent them, with theology signifying the supression of those cults. Sadly partizans are hard coded and an unwanted effect of communism. I am still trying to devise a decent formula. As for the Franks, thats already in. Sort of. Their starting possition means expansion to roman territory or annihilation. There are too many techs that the franks won't be able to research without increasing their research output with expansion.Was thinking of using flags representing captured roman teritories(especially the cities where the fabricae were), but in the end i deemed against it. Although playtesting may indicate otherwise.

[EZRhino]

Originally Posted by Palaiologos2

Thats exactly the thinking behind the "expansion" of the map to the east. Quite frankly, initially the focus was on the east, being an easterner myself. Unfortunately i couldn't expand the map more to the south to include the Persian invasion of Yemen, Aksum etc. The proxy wars of Persia and Rome in the region are quite interesting.

I like that idea, though you may still want to trim some of the far eastern area out anyway if only to avoid having to deal with Tang Chinese/Gupta/Tufan-Tibetan Empire/Kushans/Rouran ect. e.g. important empires in this time frame that shouldn't be barbarians.

Exactly. I had to make some concessions to the starting civs. The Germans represent the Saxons, Frissians etc, i.e the eastern Germanics in contact with the Slavs. I've decided to make the Franks a seperate civ due to their immense impact on dark ages europe. The scythians as you may have already guessed are just a catch all name for the "western" nomadic people (slavs, bulgars, avars), they were reffered to as "scythians" by their contemporaries after all. The goths are represented by a unit buildable by the germans, scythians and franks. The Sarmatians, Alans etc are sadly represented by generic units(Steppe lancers/archers etc). A history geek will recognize them in the gfx used though.
The starting date for "Vae Victis" is 270ish AD, after the 3rd century crisis.

(If it were me) I would group the Franks, Visigoths and Vandals together. The "Germans' I would call the Saxons who could also represent Thuringians, and Danes, and you could give them Ostrogoth cavalry by events. The 'Scythians' I would give over to either another German or another Turk nation as the Sarmatians/Alans as Iranian steppe people were replaced by Turkish peoples early on in the time frame of the scenario. Slavs never made an important state in the dark ages so they could be barbarians. One Turkish player could represent early Western Khaganates like the Huns, later on Bularians and Avars, while another, eastern Khaganates could represent Khazars, Ghuzz and Gok Turks that migrate west over the course of the scenario. Alternatively there could be a South German tribe representing Alemanni, Burgundians and Lombards. Food for thought

[McMonkey]

Sounds very interesting. Too tired from travelling right now to add anything worthwhile but I just wanted to show my interest

[Palaiologos2]

Originally Posted by EZRhino

I like that idea, though you may still want to trim some of the far eastern area out anyway if only to avoid having to deal with Tang Chinese/Gupta/Tufan-Tibetan Empire/Kushans/Rouran ect. e.g. important empires in this time frame that shouldn't be barbarians.

As said , I've made the map from scratch . The original plan was indeed as you have guessed to have the map halt just at the western edge of the Hindu Kush, including a part of Afghanistan. Actual map design however had me reaching Pakistan if i wanted to keep the map scale decently accurate. The Kushans will be represented by a single barbarian city. There is no way i am redoing the map. Took me days.

(If it were me) I would group the Franks, Visigoths and Vandals together.

Thats how things are currently. The scenario attempts to recreate the era of the migrations and the settling down of the barbarian raiders to "Kingdoms". Not the migration movements as per sense. The Franks represent the political entity that evolved into the "heir" of the Western Roman Empire. The Visigoths are represented by a Goth unit buildable by all(inluding the Franks), while the Vandals will supposedly be "represented" in any generic barbarian unit.

The "Germans' I would call the Saxons who could also represent Thuringians, and Danes, and you could give them Ostrogoth cavalry by events. The 'Scythians' I would give over to either another German or another Turk nation as the Sarmatians/Alans as Iranian steppe people were replaced by Turkish peoples early on in the time frame of the scenario. Slavs never made an important state in the dark ages so they could be barbarians. One Turkish player could represent early Western Khaganates like the Huns, later on Bularians and Avars, while another, eastern Khaganates could represent Khazars, Ghuzz and Gok Turks that migrate west over the course of the scenario. Alternatively there could be a South German tribe representing Alemanni, Burgundians and Lombards. Food for thought

The "slavs" actually did made an impact in the dark ages. Not the slavs themselves but their Bulgar and Avar overlords. These are who the scythians are supposed to represent. And the Khazars, sort of. Its a mix. Gothic city names for example have been given to the "scythian" civ. Gothicscantza, Oium etc. The civ generally represents the western nomadic nations. The Turks on the other hand, while loosely representing the Gokturks, are actually all the central Asian nomadic nations.
The scenario civilizations are not kingdoms or nations usually seen in every scenario, but civilizations, in the broader sense. The Alemanni, Burgundians etc are part of the "Germans". No special unit for these. There are generally no event-created units. Apart for the AI only Mahomedans and after certain wonders are built, or techs are researched.
I like to think that this scenario follows the original microprose scenario traditions. There will be no event created deterministic migrations. I tried to develop a formula of sorts to represent the migration movements that were set into motion by the Huns, having the Germans get units near Roman territory for everyone of their own killed by the Turks, but it was too complicated for the AI. So i decided to stick with the good old fashioned vanilla gameplay-create settlers, build cities, expand. For the Nomadic civs that is-something the AI totally understands.
The Romans and Persians have nowhere to expand to-their empires are already on the verge of revolt.

[Palaiologos2]

Other Features:

Government switching IS allowed. Although there is only one alternative to the starting despotism for most civs-Monarchy. Actually the Monarchy tech is the single most important technology in the game. It represents the final settling down of the barbarians into Kingdoms and opens up a whole new tech tree. The Romans start with the unresearchable communism. It is assumed that the AI will always change its government from Despotism to Monarchy, and never from monarchy to communism(If the Romans are AI controlled). Even if they do, it will just represent the degeneration of the Roman imperial administration.

It is possible to assume the title of Emperor of the Romans-even playing as a barbarian civ. Although that won't change the government to communism.

Terrain: There was a climatic change in the years 400-900AD, and agricultural production plummeted. In game the terrain tiles produce less food. However a new terrain tile "Wheatfield", found in the Crimea, Ukraine, Messopotamia, Sicily and Aegyptus can sustain the large population of huge urban centers, such as Constantinople, Alexandreia, Antioch etc.

Moreover another new terrain type makes its appearance: Metal Ore. Units being uber expensive(especially for the advanced civs) and production output of certain tiles lowered , these strategically placed tiles make the cities using them extra important.Found in Cyprus, Dalmatia, Asia Minor, and of course Armenia. Armenia additionally has the "Principality of Armenia" wonder(King Richard) making it able to support almost the entire Persian military.

[Squonk]

I have just seen it, will surely try it

[Palaiologos2]

Just wanted to pop up and say that i am still working on this one. Real life has taken a huge toll on my free time, and i have been unable to even meet deadlines i've set for myself.

[Squonk]

Good to know, and good luck

[CurtSibling]

Keep the faith, sir! We hope to see this one appear sometime...It will be worth the wait.

[McMonkey]

Hope you find the time to get this done. A scenario takes so much time and effort to get right!