Instead of making Archers just another moderate attack, low defense, defensive bombard unit, they can become a sort of siege unit -- that is, low (2) defense and attack so that they are not made for actual combat, with low (4ish, so that they have a very low chance of destroying city defense structures), yet ranged and offensive (meaning Bombard range = 1), lethal bombard, with 3 Rate of Fire and lethal land bombardment. So instead of being that unit that you just sent against the enemy to waste or maybe finish off a weakened unit, the Archers can be used for what they really were used for -- softening the enemy and reducing their numbers before attacking or before they attack. Since massing them could also be a problem, they can also require support. As for graphics, you could probably request for one of those unit graphics guys to make a Roman army archer unit. I'm sure they'd be willing to help out with such a great scenario. And, of course, remove the Oriental Goods requirement from them since some people may not be fortunate enough to conquer that far by the time they're available.
You will see that I followed many of your ideas, especially the archer idea! I would keep the oriental good requirement (since most archers used by Rome where from Syria and Asia in general) but the players lagging behind will have the funditores as a similar unit available as soon as some Gaul Goods have been secured.
the earliest Legios are given 1 more defense so that they can defend themselves slightly better. Also, either all of Rome's Legios can receive an extra HP bonus (representing their superior military training and organization, even in the days of the early Republic), or all the enemy civ's foot troops can have their HP bonus reduced by 1. Either way works, tho the latter would likely be the best -- less HP means that the lower-HP units such as Cavalry actually stand a chance against foot troops. Either way, with these changes, the Roman Legios really need to have an HP bonus over the other civ's foot troops.
I understand this is an issue in the first part of the game, but soon the Roman will often have a HP advantage on opponents (either due to battle experience or the presence of a triumphus). I really wouldnt like to have a conscript legio having better HP than equivalent enemy troops. With better def, better def bomb, and AI more likely to lead army on the field rather than massing militia in towns, lets see if more bonus is needed for the Roman after next patch
Cities built on the very edge of the map are weak (not enough city boxes to ever do much), hardly visible and generally annoying. I do not know if you've seen/heard of the main concept in Rhye's Civ. MOD, but less cities on a map speeds up the game, thus weak cities on the edge of the map also would bog down a potentially already slow loading scenario (like one with lots of cool unique units). YOU do not have such cities (Thank you!) but some of the terrain on the edge of your map has the possibility of being settled by the AI to everyone's dismay.
So when I customize my games - I always make the terrain on the 2-3 spaces of edge of the map forest/desert/mountain/tundra/swamp, whatever fits the climate and area and cannot be settled... I think you should consider this...
ALSO - Did you know that you have desert terrain checked as ABLE to be settled on in the game rules?! I think that should definitely be no - desert terrain sucks and would only create weak cities...
Only Rome and the Germans have access to a very few settlers (all wonder generated, to replace city ran over by conquest). But I see spots where he might go settling a wrong tile. I will fix it. Desert allow city, I was lazy to check the box, since no settler can enter deserts
I noticed on your website that you show the area of ancient Persia as Parthia - Thank you! I have always thought Rome scenarios should have the real enemy of the east! - but in the game itself it then says "Persia"... and even though the Parthians took over the Persian empire... I think it should be Seleucids or Parthia, but not Persia... just a thought... also the Parthians came later so it doesn't make sense for them to start there and the Seleucids would be in power. I have found it impossible to simulate the Parthians taking over the Seleucids though (before or after Rome in the East). One is always more powerful or both weak. So I like Parthia alreadying being a bad boy.
PresidentMarco made the same remark before I think. What is called in-game Persia is both Parthia AND the Sassanids (in the latest part of the game as reflected by new units). I tried to find a name that could include both of them. I am open to suggestions though!
What's the point of the Roman city Barium? I delete it for my Customization and the game seems better off without it. I can see wanting Rome to have to defend it, but its too close to other cities and makes them weaker and Rome is already too weak, but I also like spaced out cities for the same reason mentioned previously about game speed, besides later power
Bovianum was added later on. See next post.
I think making Gaul more powerful would be necessary for a later challenge (I don't know since I can't ever get close to defeating Carthage, but if I did, I have a feeling that Gaul wouldn't have a chance against my combined lands of Carthage and Rome)
I need feedback on that! The point (which is ruined in last versions due to a defect in my brain
) is that Gauls and especially Germania were to get new powerful units by 0AC (Bellatores Loricati).
I like how Gaul goes over onto Britain... Although it weakens the Britains (not good at all), I did it myself in the past on the TAM MOD because its too easy to not care about Britain and conquer mainland Europe, so having the pissed off Gauls attack from Britain still after you've taken the area of France would force you to go there too.
Thanks, although it was mostly designed so to prevent the AI to mass troops in Britain
You have a lot of accurate city locations which I must commend you for , but just my opinion, Delphi does not make sense where its at.
To be correct, the capital of the Etolian League should be Ambracta, but I thought Delphi was much more a siginificant city, plus I had to place the oracle there! Besides, is the location that bad? It is just max 2 tiles from where it should be
I also have some issues with locations such as Burgundi in France where they long last settled as well as with ownership on some Barbarian tribe cities, such as Visigoths being German rather than Sarmatian, since Ostrogoths are considered Sarmatian.
Burgundi were a tribe which settled there for a while (on one of the hundred map I used for the mod). Check it, they are not (yet) in France but the other side of the Rhine! For the Goths, I agree, but theey were split on a geograhphic basis (there is that huge pripet swamp in the middle!). Plus, the 2 goths lines have a very different history later on, going in different places and conquering different peoples. I would keep as it is now.
*Also you could add more tribes than the same name with a space after it. Nothing thats too big of a deal so I will not go into it unless you really care, since you probably already realize it.
Done
Check some Nomad tribes
Greece, Asia Minor and the East seem too weak (fractionalized) to make much of a challenge after the Second Punic War. I can't get there though so I can't verify that, but in other scenarios, once I have Roman land + Carthage land - there has to be a strong and solid East to stop me. An alliance under Mithrandates would make sense though.
Very true, thus my wish not to weaken the AI civilized units (which never improve) too much. Mithridates should in theory be a challenge for you. With sufficient feedback, Pontus, the Seleucids and the Ptolemeans can be made much stronger.
On the same topic as 7 and 4... What is to stop Rome from trashing Germania and Sarmatia once it has Carthage, Gaul, and the Mediterranean? In other games I've found that the game is over by then, unless you pump up the North.
Their new units, which dont arrive on time right now but this will be fixed!
I might place all their cities on marshes to avoid Roman conquest but I would prefer something less drastic (with some Roman conquest of Germania possible for example).
Slaves work too slow to get the production needed for Rome to build units in time to survive, mainly because Rome can't conquer and enslave enough of them because of their weakness... I've tried placing 2 mines already built for each city of Rome and giving every city a pre-built Fabrica, but its still not even close I've even tried giving slaves a worker strenth of 200 like Legios, which did help, but I do like the concept of needing a LOT of slaves like in history, but just cannot get them
Really? I usually get many of them (as long as you use legion and not velites to carry-on the main part of the action!). You also have the engineer who can greatly help in cutting your olive trees and mining your once idyllic hills
ok pink! i have my civ installed and im starting up a new game. first thing i notice... i lost barium to magna graecia couse of those samnites... is this intended? i remember we talked about this. i think it is best to not have the capture flag... flagged lol. get back to me on this
Welcome back to Civ Coltrane
, the Samnites are so pitiful that you must give them that. They are not much of a threat even so. Plus no flag on capture allows no AI offensive strategy, remember!
I made all Republican governments (except Civil War) have +2 more support in Town and City... But no add. to Metropolis to signify the waste/lack of support per size/prosperity, besides keeping Rome weaker on a large scale.
Sounds logical! My approach was opposite, only in favour of the larger cities but now that I think about it, the more martial provinces were those at the borders and lightly populated (Illyria, Gaul, Noricum, Rheatia, etc.) while Asia (densely populated) was supposed to be effeminate and not very warlike
I forgot to mention that I have added 2 mines (no road) to the radius of every city in Rome, but slave value is normal... I hope to conquer tons of slaves to finish more! I am satisfied with the production from a city with starting fabrica, no upkeep and 2 mines so that units or gold from capitalization (forgot the term in RFRE) are available
Plus- no waiting to make the cities better by drawing resources away for buildings, instant action for an instant enemy...
With increased mine production and slave market bonus, I dont think I would do that. Too much boost to the economy. Early legion are not really expensive, just need population and to be supported. Between legions, you can build one improvement and let the city grow again. I think it works quite ok as it is.
Plague can happen. In the times of the early Roman Empire. Intended?
There was at least a couple of serious plague that I can remember during the imperial times of Rome
the Science Advisor graphics tells me that Antonine's Golden Age requires Siege Engineering to be researched before it can be researched, yet it isn't. I think what the Science Advisor graphics imply make sense, too, since Siege Engineering has to do with Rome building up its fortress and walls along its borders, and then later Hadrian's Wall being one of the major accomplishments in northern England.
The arrow is hidden behind siege engineering
You need AGA to get that tech, not the other way around (same idea anyway).
the Servi looks odd when he "Fights Slave Unrest" ... did they fight slave unrests by doing the booty shake in those days?
Not choice, to get the possibility to have the AI strategy Terraform flagged, I need to check every worker action