RBC12 - Fall of Rome - Huns (Diety)
- Thread starter Ridgelake
- Start date
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Thanks to everyone for a great game. It was really fun. In particular, thanks to T-Hawk for letting me play the last turn.
A couple of reflections.
First, an amusing anomaly. As I mention, in the last turn, the Franks took out the Vandals. Yet they are still on the mini-map! The replay clearly shows their deaths, though. Incidently, am I supposed to put the end up? I did make a save from the end of the last round in case anyone wants it.
On another topic, when I started this game, I had no idea that so many points are available for taking out a civ. It seems to me that this is silly. Why should you get points for taking out troops a thousand miles from your position? It also seriously unbalancing. The scenario is called "The Fall of Rome". Well... Rome should fall! What's more, you should have to take the VPs and hold them in order to win.
Despite our early worries, we would have had no trouble taking the Romans out either. Once the Visigoths were out of the way, it would be an easy ride. I doubt the Goths would have lasted five turns. Troops were ready to move north from Metz... and the Horde was on the move!
Thanks again.
A couple of reflections.
First, an amusing anomaly. As I mention, in the last turn, the Franks took out the Vandals. Yet they are still on the mini-map! The replay clearly shows their deaths, though. Incidently, am I supposed to put the end up? I did make a save from the end of the last round in case anyone wants it.
On another topic, when I started this game, I had no idea that so many points are available for taking out a civ. It seems to me that this is silly. Why should you get points for taking out troops a thousand miles from your position? It also seriously unbalancing. The scenario is called "The Fall of Rome". Well... Rome should fall! What's more, you should have to take the VPs and hold them in order to win.
Despite our early worries, we would have had no trouble taking the Romans out either. Once the Visigoths were out of the way, it would be an easy ride. I doubt the Goths would have lasted five turns. Troops were ready to move north from Metz... and the Horde was on the move!
Thanks again.
Charis
Realms Beyond
Well done Gents! I'm glad the Huns in our Vizigoth game weren't as capable or bloodthirsty as you guys.
A few comments on Abegweit's post...
- Yes, you should upload the save from from the turn before the victory, so others on your team can 'hit enter' and have the win recorded in their hall-of-fame
- Regarding high VP for troops you didn't kill. No it's not perfect, but pretty clever, imho. Those folks who take on a foe at their peek and defeat them by themselves score big. Those who sign the world up in a dogpile and wait until the victim is gassed get far less points - this is good. The only problem is that 'poaching' the civ kill when someone else has done all the work is effective if your timing is good, *but* the flip side is this - tremendous excitement and trepidation as you're getting up to 6 or 7 cities killed, having to think strategically and do well tactically to make sure you score the final blow. That all-the-pts-for-knockout rule also meant several teams had to "cross the water" and make a tough semi-amphibious assault to earn their points.
- Regarding the "Fall of Rome", the Vizigoths sacked Rome LONG before the empire fell. The city itself isn't so important except for symbolic effect. When people speak of the Fall of Rome they're talking about the mighty Roman Empire, and it happened when Barbarian tribes surrounding did just what we did in this game, started chewing up large sections of the empire and sacking perimeter cities.
Charis
A few comments on Abegweit's post...
- Yes, you should upload the save from from the turn before the victory, so others on your team can 'hit enter' and have the win recorded in their hall-of-fame
- Regarding high VP for troops you didn't kill. No it's not perfect, but pretty clever, imho. Those folks who take on a foe at their peek and defeat them by themselves score big. Those who sign the world up in a dogpile and wait until the victim is gassed get far less points - this is good. The only problem is that 'poaching' the civ kill when someone else has done all the work is effective if your timing is good, *but* the flip side is this - tremendous excitement and trepidation as you're getting up to 6 or 7 cities killed, having to think strategically and do well tactically to make sure you score the final blow. That all-the-pts-for-knockout rule also meant several teams had to "cross the water" and make a tough semi-amphibious assault to earn their points.
- Regarding the "Fall of Rome", the Vizigoths sacked Rome LONG before the empire fell. The city itself isn't so important except for symbolic effect. When people speak of the Fall of Rome they're talking about the mighty Roman Empire, and it happened when Barbarian tribes surrounding did just what we did in this game, started chewing up large sections of the empire and sacking perimeter cities.
Charis
T-hawk
Transcend
I agree with Charis' points about the scoring system. Its biggest flaw is if *nobody* has to face the big stacks but you still get credit for killing them, which is exactly what happened in the Sid game thanks to all the cities in England. The other flaw, also taken advantage of in the Sid game, is that the barbarians shouldn't get nearly so many points for killing each other. Unfortunately, to make it work that way would require some major coding changes (or lock the barbs into alliances with each other, which also isn't a great idea.)
And yes, Abegweit, please upload the final save. Those of us who never actually did any combat (ok, that'd be me) would like to see it.
BTW, well played and a very good writeup on that last turn - you did it better justice than I would've. 
And yes, Abegweit, please upload the final save. Those of us who never actually did any combat (ok, that'd be me) would like to see it.
BTW, well played and a very good writeup on that last turn - you did it better justice than I would've. That was really awesome guys.
Just to add the story, my name is Attila, and is a Hungarian person, so i was obviously interested in playing the game.
I don't know many exploits that are used, like selling maps repeatedly, so i was always in trouble with getting strong enough economics to win the game. I made it on emperor level at the end.
I had some 6 or 7 tries before the winner strategy, which was to move on to the ostrogoths. Actually i settled the whole hun nation on the northern side of he caucasus, just east to the ostrogoths. This had 2 very important advantage, one is that got much closer to the Byzantine's, the second is that i was able to make galleys to both seas.
In the later part of the game i took out Sassaninds by moving up warlords with galleys to coastal cities, and also attack them from the mainland. It was made by prepositioned teams, just after an expiring right of movement, and with having them alredy lost 3 cities. So, they ended in a single turn.
I think the designers have planned a war strategy that is based on the enslave ability of warlords, because it allows to raise army by capturing instead of building. It requires mostly money, for upgrading the marauders to warlord, and speed up the process. I tried to make it with huns, but it failed by overdue roman victory, but maybe it can be organized better. Also huns are very far from the main events, and warlord armies, espcially when slowed by enemy territory, or passing by allies on the roads, are always late. If the nation is settled in the great plains, then cavalry armies is a must, however HC's are much less effective against legions, with 4 defense (+bonuses).
That was the main reason why the closer settle was comaparatively much more successful...
Just to add the story, my name is Attila, and is a Hungarian person, so i was obviously interested in playing the game.
I don't know many exploits that are used, like selling maps repeatedly, so i was always in trouble with getting strong enough economics to win the game. I made it on emperor level at the end.
I had some 6 or 7 tries before the winner strategy, which was to move on to the ostrogoths. Actually i settled the whole hun nation on the northern side of he caucasus, just east to the ostrogoths. This had 2 very important advantage, one is that got much closer to the Byzantine's, the second is that i was able to make galleys to both seas.
In the later part of the game i took out Sassaninds by moving up warlords with galleys to coastal cities, and also attack them from the mainland. It was made by prepositioned teams, just after an expiring right of movement, and with having them alredy lost 3 cities. So, they ended in a single turn.
I think the designers have planned a war strategy that is based on the enslave ability of warlords, because it allows to raise army by capturing instead of building. It requires mostly money, for upgrading the marauders to warlord, and speed up the process. I tried to make it with huns, but it failed by overdue roman victory, but maybe it can be organized better. Also huns are very far from the main events, and warlord armies, espcially when slowed by enemy territory, or passing by allies on the roads, are always late. If the nation is settled in the great plains, then cavalry armies is a must, however HC's are much less effective against legions, with 4 defense (+bonuses).
That was the main reason why the closer settle was comaparatively much more successful...
