Fall of Rome Scenario: Discussion

MerchantCo

Merchant
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
394
Location
Venice
Fall of Rome is my favorite scenario, and I've beaten it with almost all of the nations [except western Rome]. I love the quick paced and relentless warfare in FoR, without setbacks such as diplomacy, exploration, religion, and science. Anyways, this thread is for any discussions related to the Fall of Rome scenario. Some questions to start off...

1. What is your favorite faction?
2. Which barbarian faction is the hardest to conquer?
3. Do you like playing as the Roman nations?
 
1. western rome (havent got their achievement though yet, tried 1 time. i got back all my cities and even wiped vandals but sassanids won because of my dumb ally on the east lost half of his cities to them)
2. celts. very annoying
3. yes )

playing as attila was fun too but too easy
 
I have a hard time playing with Atilla for some reason. The Vandals/Celts were fun to play with, though.
 
Myself, I didn't enjoy this scenario in Civ V.
I'm too much of a builder for a strict 100 turn limit. (I enjoyed the Civ III version where there was a lot more time to build core buildings in your empire first between the 150 turn limit and some nice pre-built roads.)
All, I hated the locked war with every other civ on the map; I would prefer having diplomacy possible with the other barbs and only being locked in a war against the Romes.
 
@Joncnunn: they give the player 70 turns, actually, and there are nice pre-built roads.
 
1. I will definitely say Western Rome. Managing to fight on various front-lines is really fun. I played on Emperor difficulty, and secured all my cities. Moreover, I conquered a Saxon city and a Vandal city, and my happiness immediately dropped to -12. Seems to me that barbarians no longer build any units after about turn 30, so the biggest problem for me was not securing cities, but managing my economy, which was deeply affected by the annoying social policies. My way to deal with it was let Roman legions to be like "barbarians" - I pillaged the farms and pastures of the Saxons and the Goths again and again to earn gold.:)

2. Celts. Their navy is too strong, and they attack the most weakly defended remote cities.

3. Obviously yes.
 
@Joncnunn: they give the player 70 turns, actually, and there are nice pre-built roads.

I recall the Civ III version having a road to (aprox location of NE most Gaul city), which isn't in Civ V at all; along with quite a few other roads in unclaimed territory.
(This results in a major economic problem for the Huns in Civ V due to inability to build a settler. Either no city connection income or an extremely expensive road that will take a long time to build that's going to be a major crash drain while building.)

The secenerio length for Civ III was 150 turns. You might be right that around 70 turn either Rome would achive score victory if not wiped out by then.
But I didn't feel rushed in Civ III. (The other AIs actually helped fight Rome; no having to divert my energy against the other barbs; and the AI in Civ III wasn't good against stacks of doom.)
 
@joncnunn: I would have liked the barbarians to be allies [everyone taking down the juggernaut]. And yes, the Huns could have used some roads. However, the Roman nations had fantastic roads everywhere.
 
1. West rome (I refuse to play barbarians in a civ game, the sassanids were too easy, and I just didn't enjoy east rome that much.
2. I've never conquered a hunnic city, but I blame geography. I'de say the Goths, since I have to funnel all my guys through several choke points. Once I squash the vandals the Celts are usually no longer a problem, as I'll be able to throw my remaining navy and army reserves at them without wasting extra hammers.
3. Read comment 1.
 
Top Bottom