I tried to get the I missed that day in history class achievement. I was able to get my troops down there with 10 turns to spare, but Eastern Rome had already conquered all their cities. The path I took was to conquer and burn most of the Roman cities in Gaul and make a blitz for the Italian peninsula by land. Once there, I embarked my units off the east coast of Italy and sailed to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. After taking a city near the shore, I crossed by land.
Fall of Rome (Scenario)
- Thread starter bronson8601
- Start date
Genghis_Sean
High School English teacher
I Sunk Your Imperial Capital Capture Rome as the Vandals using a boat in the Fall of Rome scenario
This was ridiculously easy. I took the two Roman cities along the coast to my east, but it gave me nothing other than some experience. Then piled everyone into the Med, sailed to Rome, took it. Cake. Now for the impossible achievement...
This was ridiculously easy. I took the two Roman cities along the coast to my east, but it gave me nothing other than some experience. Then piled everyone into the Med, sailed to Rome, took it. Cake. Now for the impossible achievement...
if you think its "ridiculously easy" why not bump up the difficulty from settler.
Genghis_Sean
High School English teacher
Did a bit of browsing regarding the Pax Romana achievement, and it looks intimidating. Check post #224, I think. Moving in two days, so I'm going to try something less challenging until I have the kind of time necessary to devote to this monster.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460177&page=12
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460177&page=12
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
It's pretty easy as Eastern Rome.
Western Rome is the one you get a cookie for doing it with.
It's pretty easy as Eastern Rome.
Western Rome is the one you get a cookie for doing it with.
Yep, trying with western roman, my trouble is not to restist/take back my cities, but how to help estern that irremediably be crush by sassanite, that finish to won by point?
Do you have somes idea?
Fall of Rome on Prince as Huns seems to have too few turns in it. (Either that or there needs to be a wave to declare peace with the other barbs to allow concentrating more on Rome.)
On Settler level, I'm sure the AI production handicaps would allow the human to double KO as any barb as AI production will suck, but Prince is a high enough level where the Gauls will send a big wave of troops at them (built from cities they conquered from Rome) right after the Huns conquer Constantinople [Greece captured first to get the promotions needed to deal with the tile placement]. That wave contains enough units which cost just enough turns dealing with to make it impossible to reach Rome by turn 70. (Too low difficulty level for another AI to take Rome; the replay of events showed that Franks only reached NW Italy; Vandals only took a few coastal cities; as as for Sass, Eastern Rome actually took back the one city they had captured. Celts a non-factor.)
[My estimate is that I would have captured Rome between turns 75 & 80; and I assume that somebody needs to take Rome to avoid Rome winning a victory as that team won even with East Rome losing its capital and both Romes losing quite a few cities.]
At a glance I'm not sure they really intended this game to be played as anybody other than the Gauls or Franks as those two civs appear to be the ones in the best position by far to succeed in the double KO in a mere 70 turns at Prince or above.
Overall in comparison to the Civ III Conquest scenario:
Starting units / city placement : Civ V much better
Hexes much better
Good idea to disallow barbs building settlers, along with disabling science.
Pre-built roads: For most civs, their both decent. However, the lack of the large neutral roads really hurt the Huns in terms of gold as their starting city while in a production power house location doesn't touch the coast, they aren't allowed to build a settler to found a city on the lake (to open trade routes); it's extremely time consuming and expensive to build a road to the first conquered city.
Score system: Civ V is suffers because it doesn't make it clear what the current score within the game at all is; while the Civ III Conquest wasn't quite clear but at least you saw one of the civs tied for losing the game.
# of turns: Civ III Conquest better; it's better to have too many turns for some playable civs than too few turns for other playable civs.
Diplomacy: Both have problems; Civ III had too few restrictions; Civ V has too many. Both Romes should be in locked wars with everybody (like Civ V), but the barbs ought to be able to have full diplomacy with each other (like Civ III).
The policy system is great. (And the Roman tree is a very good read)
SpyPenguin
Chieftain
I have a problemo:
I beat the scenario as the Byzantines (got the Pax Romana Aeter-something achievment), but the ending picture said I lost. Does it say you lose no matter what, since there are no "normal" victories?
And as for strategies for the Pax Romana achievement, what I did was this:
1. Use my Legions to create a fort next to every city (for Byzantine combat bonus)
2. Build lots of Dromons and Catapults (for bombard defense)
3. Build lots of Cataphract (great for spamming against the Sassanids)
4. Flood the area around Rome with Dromons, so that you can help Rome defend against the barbarians (Franks especially)
When I followed these steps, no one was able to take any of my cities, at all. Also, since I helped Rome stay alive, Romans starts trekking across my empire to fight the Sassanids for me. By keeping Rome safe with my superior navy, Rome was able to keep me safe with their superior army. Unfortunately, Western Rome kinda got its ass kicked in the scenario (lost all cities except Rome and Carthage), but they were still able to keep the Sassanids and Goths off my back. Hope this works for you!
I beat the scenario as the Byzantines (got the Pax Romana Aeter-something achievment), but the ending picture said I lost. Does it say you lose no matter what, since there are no "normal" victories?
And as for strategies for the Pax Romana achievement, what I did was this:
1. Use my Legions to create a fort next to every city (for Byzantine combat bonus)
2. Build lots of Dromons and Catapults (for bombard defense)
3. Build lots of Cataphract (great for spamming against the Sassanids)
4. Flood the area around Rome with Dromons, so that you can help Rome defend against the barbarians (Franks especially)
When I followed these steps, no one was able to take any of my cities, at all. Also, since I helped Rome stay alive, Romans starts trekking across my empire to fight the Sassanids for me. By keeping Rome safe with my superior navy, Rome was able to keep me safe with their superior army. Unfortunately, Western Rome kinda got its ass kicked in the scenario (lost all cities except Rome and Carthage), but they were still able to keep the Sassanids and Goths off my back. Hope this works for you!
Callonia
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,180
The fall of roman empire is honestly the only scenario i've liked out of every single scenario firaxis released for civ 5. I actually played it more than once!
Only open the spoiler if you wanna try to survive as the western roman empire.
Prince difficulty.
Only open the spoiler if you wanna try to survive as the western roman empire.
Prince difficulty.
Spoiler :
Yes; and if you take until turn 100 as China in the Korean scenario, this also applies.
WarIsPeace
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 49
Did this scenario get a lot harder with the fall patch? I played it a couple of times before on Emperor as western Rome and did OK. I tried again tonight and was getting badly overrun.
One difference that I noticed was that legions now have less than 100% chance of converting a defeated barb unit. It's a big difference since one can't predict whether a legion will advance into the space of the defeated unit or not.
One difference that I noticed was that legions now have less than 100% chance of converting a defeated barb unit. It's a big difference since one can't predict whether a legion will advance into the space of the defeated unit or not.
LoneRebel
Emperor
so you consider beating the scenario on settler an achivement?
Man, you're obnoxious. Had to mention it since this isn't the first time I've seen you being obnoxious. There was also that other thread where you were saying that Civ 5 sucks, Civ 3 is so much better, and anyone who likes Civ 5 is stupid.
(Yes, I know this comment is from a year ago, but this level of obnoxiousness sets my teeth on edge).
I would like to thank Genghis_Sean for his intelligently written posts that were helpful and easy to read. I would like commend his strength of character for basically ignoring his heckler. It was refreshing and pleasing to "feel the enthusiasm, pride, and joy" that the gentleman from Indiana was showing in his posts. I felt nothing good about his heckler and I hope that is what the previous poster was expressing.
I am a retiree and Civ5 is something that I enjoy and thankfully, I now have the time to do that. I wish Genghis_Sean many more happy experiences in the civilization series of game.
I would like commend his strength of character for basically ignoring his heckler. It was refreshing and pleasing to "feel the enthusiasm, pride, and joy" that the gentleman from Indiana was showing in his posts. I felt nothing good about his heckler and I hope that is what the previous poster was expressing. I am a retiree and Civ5 is something that I enjoy and thankfully, I now have the time to do that. I wish Genghis_Sean many more happy experiences in the civilization series of game.
WarIsPeace
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 49
So I'm replying to my own post to say that I think the fall patch "broke" this scenario. As I said, I played twice as Western Rome before the fall patch. I did OK, especially the second time when I had a much better idea of the strengths and weaknesses of my position.
This week I tried again as Western Rome. I got overrun pretty quickly, so I tried another start and made sure I was playing on Emperor as I thought. (I was.) In that game I lost fewer cities than I had during my game earlier this week, but still many more than I lost in either of the games prior to the patch. I was close to reversing the barb advance when I had to take the social policy that makes the rebel army appear.
The rebel army appeared and pillaged two things --- a road connecting Rome with the main part of my empire, and my iron. I had managed to scrimp together 65
(not easy in the early part of this scenario) and suddenly I was at -37 gpt and my legions were at -50% strength due to a lack of iron. That was it, I gave up on that game.I played again, this time choosing the Franks for the first time. I ended up with nearly a higher score than all the other players combined.
I don't know whether it is due to the change in the rules for legions converting defeated units or what, but this scenario now seems to be 1-2 difficulty levels higher for W. Rome, and probably 1-2 levels easier for the barbs.
No; it's probably one level more difficult for the barbs as well. (Problem being the "other" barbs more likely to go after the human).
This is probably a side effect of the teaching the AI how to cash buy units.
WarIsPeace
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 49
Have you played as the barbs before and after the patch? I have not; my comment comes after having played just one game as someone other than Western Rome, so I don't have a lot of data to go on. But I found that playing the Franks post-patch was easier than playing W. Rome pre-patch.
On my first try with the Franks, I sacked Rome, had crossed the Pyrenees and taken a city in Spain, had catapults assailing London, and had razed the Goths' westernmost city. A cakewalk. And fun, after getting thumped as W. Rome.
On my first try with the Franks, I sacked Rome, had crossed the Pyrenees and taken a city in Spain, had catapults assailing London, and had razed the Goths' westernmost city. A cakewalk. And fun, after getting thumped as W. Rome.
Have you played as the barbs before and after the patch? I have not; my comment comes after having played just one game as someone other than Western Rome, so I don't have a lot of data to go on. But I found that playing the Franks post-patch was easier than playing W. Rome pre-patch.
On my first try with the Franks, I sacked Rome, had crossed the Pyrenees and taken a city in Spain, had catapults assailing London, and had razed the Goths' westernmost city. A cakewalk. And fun, after getting thumped as W. Rome.
As Franks: Fighting West Rome wasn't a problem. The Celts though while my army was in West Rome decided to send his army after me instead of W Rome and so I would have had to relocate my army back. Looked like that would make it impossible to take both Rome & Constantinople in the time allowed so I quit. (None of the Eastern barbs weren't going after E Rome and so even if you conquer Italy, you lose to Bryantine)
As Huns: Fighting both Romes not the problem. And I found a sneaky combo of which Gaul cities to raze to ensure they kept their army focused on Rome until they managed to lose it.
Took Constanople midway thru game; ran out of time to take Rome; replay showed all AIs passive against Rome, so West Rome got a time victory.
As Vandals: Eastern barbs weren't fighting E Rome and in addition Western barbs weren't fighting W Rome. This allowed East Rome to build too many Dromons for me to reach them after I sank the imperial capital.
I think I'd have enjoyed the scenario if:
1. There were 150 turns instead of just 100 to give more time to take out both Romes.
2. The barbs were only in locked wars against both Romes instead of every civ (so that they would focus on Rome)
3. In case of Huns, also start with a size 1 city on the Black sea so they can get trade connections to conquered territory.
4. In case of the Gauls; convert their two extreme western most cities into city states; they are too far away to get a trade route up to.
WarIsPeace
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 49
I don't think you have to take Rome & Constantinople to win, or maybe you were pursuing a personal goal. I won with the Franks (by points) and I don't think I fought E. Rome at all. From reading other threads, it seems like there's a lot of questions about what actually constitutes a victory in the scenario. I can't say I'm super-clear on it myself.
I think I'm done with this scenario but I liked it a lot. I really liked the idea of social policies that make things worse instead of better. And playing as W. Rome was very good practice for getting the most out of my military. Using the legions correctly is so critical, and W. Rome is at -10% combat strength for most of the game.
I think I'm done with this scenario but I liked it a lot. I really liked the idea of social policies that make things worse instead of better. And playing as W. Rome was very good practice for getting the most out of my military. Using the legions correctly is so critical, and W. Rome is at -10% combat strength for most of the game.
I'm not exactly sure what the minimum is needed to win Fall of Rome myself. I just know that taking Constantinople + all cities in Greece & the Balkans isn't (The time loss screen appeared in that one) and so I'm assuming someone (not necessarily the human) has to take both capitals.
A clear cut rule on what the minimum number of cities that each Rome must lose to deny them a time victory would eliminate confusion.
At the time that I abandoned the Frank game; I had most of France, including Paris and was knocking on the door of the coastal cities in SE France & NW Italy.
wcbarney
Know-it-all
Is this achievement broken? A couple of days ago I captured Damascas on turn 65 while playing as the Celts at the Prince level. Didn't get the achievement, and don't know why.
Similar threads
