The Twilight of Rome

"It is the year AD 394. Roman culture has dominated the Mediterranean for the last 400 years. But even the glories of Rome are starting to fade. In AD 293, the Emperor Diocletian divided the empire into administrative sections, and later the great Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium in AD 330. Following the death of Theodosius, the empire has cleanly split into two separate, yet intimately connected, empires: the Western, Latin-based portion, and the Eastern, Greek-based portion. And while corruption is rampant, a greater threat exists around the fringes of civilization. Nomadic bands of barbarians are rising up, and will soon try to assail the massive empire itself. It seems that the great Roman Empire is destined to fall. Or is it?"

This is basically a super-heavily modified version of the standard Civ III scenario "Fall of Rome". However, instead of playing as the barbarians, this scenario asks you to play as either the Western or Eastern Roman Empire. Also, all of the barbarians (sans the Franks and Anglo-Saxons) are in a locked war against the Roman Empire.

Initially, things are rough. The Western Romans lack copious amounts of money and decent infrastructure (many of the roads have decayed) and are surrounded by the Celts to the northwest, the Vandals to the south, and the Lombard and Visigoths to the north. The Eastern Romans, while having a bit more money and better infrastructure are right next to the strengthening Sasanian Persians and the fierce Huns.

The challenge of this scenario is to rise up and restore the glory of Rome, either by complete conquest of your enemies, holding on and achieving a Victory Point win, or restoring the strength of Roman culture (ie, a cultural victory).

Major changes:
*New civilization, the Lombards, replace the Vandals in he north. The Vandals have been moved to Northern Africa and will mess yo' stuff up.
*New units: Laeti, Medium Cavalry, Imperial Guard, and Keshik
*New improvements: Mithraeum, Imperial Column, Victory Arch, Basilica, Relic, Lupinarium
*New Wonders: Reforms of Constantine, City of God, Sibylline Oracle, Hadrian's Wall, Tetrarchy
*New Government, Monarch, for the Sasanians only
*Whole mess of new techs, including "Pagan Traditions", "Nova Roma", "Barbarian Allies", "Orthodoxy", "Papal Authority", etc.
*Massive amount of map, unit, and building tweaks...
*Addition of "Gladiatorial Games" (ie sacrifices) that bulk up the culture of your cities.
*Greater attention to historic detail (for instance, Brennus, a Celts who never even fought imperial Rome, is gone (replaced with Boudicca); Constantine and Theodora have been replaced with Honorius and Arcadius, respectively, etc)
*And many, many, many more things that are innumerable to mention...

Hope you get a kick out of it. Salve, et cura ut valeas!

Download Link + Plus 10/24/14 Patch

Your First Choice


Haec Roma est!


Western Roman Tech Tree


Vandals in Northern Africa...


Every Town Needs a Brothel


The Reforms of Constantine


Laeti

This scenario is heavily indebted to the original Firaxis scenario, Gobi Bear and Alduskkel's iterations of "Everlasting Rome", and Quintillus for his cross-platform editor (without which, I wouldn't have been able to make this scenario). I also used Ukas's Triumphal Arch in this scenario (it's the only user-created graphic that has been added in, to both reduce file size and to appeal to my 'less-is-more' sensibilities).

Sounds good. I have to try it (after I've given it a look that fits my taste )

Giving this a spin also.

T-mun said:

Sounds good. I have to try it (after I've given it a look that fits my taste )

Click to expand...

I hope you enjoy it! I put a lot of time and energy into this to make it a little more fun and accurate to the time period!

Sun_Ce said:

Giving this a spin also.

Click to expand...

Enjoy!

I'll give this a go as soon as I have a computer that can run Civ 3. The most intriguing thing is your introduction of a cultural victory option, which I considered adding myself but I was unsure of how to implement it.

So, having looked at it in the editor only (take what I say with a grain of salt, then), here are my guesses as to how it will play out differently:
-There are a LOT more cities. That's going to make the unchanged 8 city elimination limit more painful.
-Barbarian defensive capabilities seem reduced, which might make blitzing them easier. On the other hand, they can retreat from combat and the Legions are back down to 1 movement point.
-Those Keshiks look brutal. At least they're delayed a few turns from the removal of some of the road. Whoever's on the receiving end of that force is going to be hurting.
-Those broken down roads in Western Rome are begging for Legions to repair them, but that might be a relative waste of time.
-Fewer luxuries in the Middle East will make things more difficult to be certain.
-The North African situation is... strange. Lots of Raiders and a Warlord eek vs. a single Legion, a few Garrisons, and... two Horsemen in the desert? Are those supposed to be Western Roman?
-Gaul seems fairly secure for Western Rome, not that it wasn't before given that the Franks have always been recruitable. However, North Africa and Britain could be very tricky frontiers. Those Celtic cities are either going to be easily picked off and just fodder for the elimination counter or a huge pain to deal with.
-Nisibis still has its Roman Garrison despite being Sasanian now.
-I honestly feel like the lack of any units with at least a defense of 3 on the non-Roman side will be their downfall, when the Romans immediately have access to a unit with an attack of 4 (and I see you put back the Legion's HP bonus too!) and can acquire two different units later with an attack of 5 -- and Cataphracts still have blitz with a movement speed of 3.
-Even if they were playable I wouldn't want to be the Visigoths. An already lackluster position and now they're locked at war with two terrifying albeit suffering neighbors. Well, at least they can win with the team.
-I'll have to check this when I can actually load up the scenario myself, but I wonder if both halves of the Roman Empire start with equal culture/culture income. This is why I never put in a domination victory condition -- Western Rome just tends to be bigger than Eastern Rome, for better or for worse.

Definitely interested, overall. Civilization 3 has always struck me as the best Civilization version for a Fall of Rome scenario, as the normally ridiculous corruption mechanic is perfectly suited here. Your introduction of a cultural victory option opens the door for the player who is losing the battle, or just wants to do something different than pure military -- something the Civilization 5 version failed to do.

Alduskkel said:

I'll give this a go as soon as I have a computer that can run Civ 3. The most intriguing thing is your introduction of a cultural victory option, which I considered adding myself but I was unsure of how to implement it.

So, having looked at it in the editor only (take what I say with a grain of salt, then), here are my guesses as to how it will play out differently:
-There are a LOT more cities. That's going to make the unchanged 8 city elimination limit more painful.
-Barbarian defensive capabilities seem reduced, which might make blitzing them easier. On the other hand, they can retreat from combat and the Legions are back down to 1 movement point.
-Those Keshiks look brutal. At least they're delayed a few turns from the removal of some of the road. Whoever's on the receiving end of that force is going to be hurting.
-Those broken down roads in Western Rome are begging for Legions to repair them, but that might be a relative waste of time.
-Fewer luxuries in the Middle East will make things more difficult to be certain.
-The North African situation is... strange. Lots of Raiders and a Warlord eek vs. a single Legion, a few Garrisons, and... two Horsemen in the desert? Are those supposed to be Western Roman?
-Gaul seems fairly secure for Western Rome, not that it wasn't before given that the Franks have always been recruitable. However, North Africa and Britain could be very tricky frontiers. Those Celtic cities are either going to be easily picked off and just fodder for the elimination counter or a huge pain to deal with.
-Nisibis still has its Roman Garrison despite being Sasanian now.
-I honestly feel like the lack of any units with at least a defense of 3 on the non-Roman side will be their downfall, when the Romans immediately have access to a unit with an attack of 4 (and I see you put back the Legion's HP bonus too!) and can acquire two different units later with an attack of 5 -- and Cataphracts still have blitz with a movement speed of 3.
-Even if they were playable I wouldn't want to be the Visigoths. An already lackluster position and now they're locked at war with two terrifying albeit suffering neighbors. Well, at least they can win with the team.
-I'll have to check this when I can actually load up the scenario myself, but I wonder if both halves of the Roman Empire start with equal culture/culture income. This is why I never put in a domination victory condition -- Western Rome just tends to be bigger than Eastern Rome, for better or for worse.

Definitely interested, overall. Civilization 3 has always struck me as the best Civilization version for a Fall of Rome scenario, as the normally ridiculous corruption mechanic is perfectly suited here. Your introduction of a cultural victory option opens the door for the player who is losing the battle, or just wants to do something different than pure military -- something the Civilization 5 version failed to do.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you get to take this scenario for a test drive. I had a lot of fun 'tweaking' it, so any and all feedback is most appreciated. Just a heads up, I played this and managed to beat it, although it was rather difficult. I'll comment on your points.

1. Yeah, more cities was intentional. It's going to be difficult as the Romans now, but its doable. You need to manage, manage, manage your units.
2. If you can gain enough legions to do it, I'd say it isn't out of the question, although they tend to build a lot of spearmen to back up their cities. Did the barbarians have a unit that was really defensive in the original? I can't remember at this point...
3. Fear the Keshiks. Fear them. They'll hit the backside of the Byzantines hard and fast. If you're playing as Eastern Rome you HAVE to build up a defense network there. The Visigoths will keep part of them at bay for awhile, but the combo of Keshiks + Sasinids can be crappy.
4. You can survive without them repaired, but they really help your situation if you fix 'em up. I always though the "build road" feature was kinda useless in this scenario (and 'Rise of Rome', tbh), since Rome already has a ton of roads.
5. Yes. I might re-add a few, though.
6. I wanted to make Northern Africa a challenge "spot". Originally, I was inspired to make this scenario when I edited the original "Fall of Rome" to make Rome playable. Northern Africa was a cake walk. I just set all the cities to gold production and raked in the money. Now, you can (immediately) do that. You HAVE to defend your cities, and then wipe out the Vandals if you want to use that section as a money-bank. The horsemen in the desert, I believe, are barbarian units, but I could've made a mistake there.
7. Gaul is fairly stable, although the Franks and Germans will 'invade' en masse and found a bunch of cities in and around the non-aligned terrain tiles. Watch out if they sneak-attack you, then. Britain and Africa are Western Rome's big 'weak' spots. The celts are surprisingly frustrating, at least in my experience. They keep dumping barbarian units using their fast-moving curraghs. Pretty much the entire Eastern frontier is the Byzantine weak spot.
8. Originally, this was just an accident, but I decided to keep it because Rome actually surrendered the city to the Sasanids after a long siege. Even though the Romans did not stay behind, I thought that unit nicely represented both the legacy of the city, and the trickiness of re-conquering it. I could be misguided here.
9. The trick here is cost. I reduced the barbarian units costs quite a bit, whereas the Roman units are a lot more expensive, and honestly not that good. Cataphracts are kinda crappy compared to the other cavalry out there. And Warlords are still really scary to deal with.
10. Yeah... Visigoths suck. Its just the nature of their position. But they can be annoying to the Byzantines.

Anyway, hope you get a chance to play this!

And, just a note, the cultural thing came after almost all of the scenario came together. Like you said, I wanted a different winning method, and I thought reintroducing sacrifice but renaming it "gladiatorial games" would be kinda fun. You can also disband the slave unit to generate more production points, which can be very, very useful. Give it a spin, and tell me if you like this feature!

2. No, but Warlords have a defense of 3 in all the other versions. In yours there are no barbarian units with a defense higher than 2, and a lot of the early ones (notably the Marauder) have a defense of 1.
5. In my version both Romes had an incense colony in Egypt, and Western Rome had a dyes colony near Antioch. Mostly I just thought it was silly that, as Western Rome, you couldn't get Eastern Rome to easily give you any luxuries despite the fact that they should be helping you. Plus, optimal play was to rush a few workers over to build colonies anyway. It also made Egypt a key location, and the Western Roman dye colony was prone to falling early anyway.
6. In the editor there are two horsemen to the south that appear to be Western Roman, at least in my editor.
7. I'd probably pull the Anglos and Franks into wars right at the start just since it hurts both them and whoever they're fighting. My strategy to deal with the Celts is generally to confine them to Ireland and eliminate any forces they land with Legions/Catapults.
9. Still, with Roman Garrisons down to 20 shields but still 1-3-1, I'd be tempted to have them escort around Cataphracts which have that scary attack of 5 + blitz with movement speed of 3 vs. Barbarians with nothing better than 2 defenders. Plus, Cataphracts will probably come before Pillagers (and definitely before Warlords) if Military Training is the first tech chosen.

Alduskkel said:

2. No, but Warlords have a defense of 3 in all the other versions. In yours there are no barbarian units with a defense higher than 2, and a lot of the early ones (notably the Marauder) have a defense of 1.
5. In my version both Romes had an incense colony in Egypt, and Western Rome had a dyes colony near Antioch. Mostly I just thought it was silly that, as Western Rome, you couldn't get Eastern Rome to easily give you any luxuries despite the fact that they should be helping you. Plus, optimal play was to rush a few workers over to build colonies anyway. It also made Egypt a key location, and the Western Roman dye colony was prone to falling early anyway.
6. In the editor there are two horsemen to the south that appear to be Western Roman, at least in my editor.
7. I'd probably pull the Anglos and Franks into wars right at the start just since it hurts both them and whoever they're fighting. My strategy to deal with the Celts is generally to confine them to Ireland and eliminate any forces they land with Legions/Catapults.
9. Still, with Roman Garrisons down to 20 shields but still 1-3-1, I'd be tempted to have them escort around Cataphracts which have that scary attack of 5 + blitz with movement speed of 3 vs. Barbarians with nothing better than 2 defenders. Plus, Cataphracts will probably come before Pillagers (and definitely before Warlords) if Military Training is the first tech chosen.

Click to expand...

2. That's a good point. I will bump up the defense for Warlords to make the barbs a little more scary.
5. I'll look into this...
6. Hmm, weird. That's a boo boo on my part.
7. That's a good idea. I didn't want Rome to be completely swamped with barbarians right at the get go, but I think I'll add that.
9. Barbarians have pretty much been blocked from researching Cataphracts/Heavy Cavalry. Only the Sasinians can built Heavy cavalry, and only Romans can build the cataphracts. But, the Huns can build Keshisk. But, you raise excellent arguments. I will lower the Cataphract's movement by one point to balance it out a bit.

I'll post a new version soon-ish.

Looks interesting, I'll have to download it!

Just out of curiosity, how do E. Rome/W. Rome tend to do under AI control? Survive or die? Any difference in performance when they have a player ally (as opposed to a non-Roman player)?

Hmm. Also:
1. Non-Romans appear to be able to build Lupinariums. Is this intentional?
2. The Sassanids aren't in Monarchy, nor does it appear to be available for them to research.
3. The Arianism tech appears to be useless since it's a Barbarian-only tech in the 2nd age... which the Barbarians can't access.
4. Marble is a strategic resource, but I don't see it anywhere on the map.
5. The Courthouse in Mediolanum is pointless.
6. Mediolanum is over size 6 yet has no Aqueduct.

Alduskkel said:

Just out of curiosity, how do E. Rome/W. Rome tend to do under AI control? Survive or die? Any difference in performance when they have a player ally (as opposed to a non-Roman player)?

Click to expand...

That's another tricky bit. You have to pretty much hold the AI's hand, but they can survive.

Finally had a go at this as Eastern Rome on Regent. The Visigoths were easily eliminated, and the Ostrogoths and Lombards are crippled. I'm also keeping the Sasanids at bay by destroying their improvements with Legions -- for some reason they aren't attacking the Legions, so I'm denying them horses/spices/silks. I don't know what the Huns are doing, but they aren't sending much my way. Western Rome is in a stalemate with its foes. Whenever one of the Anglos/Franks attacks Western Rome, I just sign an alliance with the other so that they just fight each other.

Lastly, I've finished the tech tree and had to reload 1 turn earlier because I clicked on "Let's see the big picture" and then the Science Advisor kept prompting me to select a tech to research, but none were selectable. So you have to select "Let's play the game" and it automatically selects Future Tech I for you.

VP is at 17250. If I sacrificed all my slaves to gladiatorial games, I'd have 3000 CP in Constantinopolis, but I don't know if I could get the remaining 2000 to get a cultural victory.

I'm in a winning position, it will just take a while though.

So overall, Regent was easy, but Monarch/Emperor might still be difficult, since on Monarch the AI gets 1 extra defender for each city, making it more difficult to blitz the Visis/Ostros.

I'd like to try a Cultural Victory as Western Rome but the whole Marble resource bug as I mentioned in the last post needs to be fixed first.

OOPS - wrong thread, please ignore - nothing to see here....

I've posted a patch that fixed some of the issues. It's in the first post.