RBC12J - Eastern Roman Empire

[Charis]

OK, I admit my comment on WRome vs ERome was based too much on the game 'atmosphere' and player comments than the actual situation. As I look at more detail how things are actually going, I see that the WRome team is doing quite nicely, playing well, being 'cautious' in expectations but 'aggressive' in actions (a good combo!), and I did not see them come under serious threat. This quote a while ago did stick in my mind...

And look at the other Eastern Rome game! They have probably loaded scenario as West Rome, looked at it, decided that on Demigod it is too tough and went for Eastern Rome which is substantially easier to handle.

Just from looking at the map this *seemed* true. We're more compact, have long-term access to lux, and our position is more defensible, as the AI must come to our core to get 8 cities. But in practice, we had the toughest of all foes to face, the Sassanids, and they were within a small prng of decimating us. It's no lie that if Cappadocia fell we were lost, as there were 5-6 *empty* cities behind it, and only a tiny handful of units defending the city. On my watch I setup the 'fort'-based defense of the city and after one round of hun invaders reached our all-time low point of one hurt horse, one hurt legion and one garrison defending that whole region. If huns had 4 units the next turn it would have been brutal.

After re-reading Western Rome I would still recommend having the Ostrogoths locked at war, individually.

The other difference is that the *initial* onslaught we faced was brutal. I can't remember the last time I've seen Arathorn report such a dismal set of turns. We dug in, turned it around, and having survived, were well set to press on and win. In the end after the fate was decided, we had the luxury of luxuries and a wonder, but those were really after-the-fact.

This isn't really a better or worse comparison of the games, and definitely not of the teams (both played very well) - but I think it's nice design that the two games player very different. ERome has a brutal beginning and better long term prospects, while WRome carries less initial threats, but does have long term worries because so many cities are vulnerable and exposed. I would hypothesize that WRome is more effected by difficulty, and becomes relatively tougher as the difficulty goes up. Our 'worse time' was the initial unit onslaught, which is constant for all diffs (afaik), while a Deity or Sid set of AI's would have endangered WRome more. Neither team on DG has seen hordes of Warlords or HC (or heck, even a lot of pillagers), and would be in pain to see them on Deity-Sid. It is ODD in that WL's and HC's ruled the game from the barb tribe games, but are almost non-present in the Roman games.

Charis

 

[Justus II]

It is ODD in that WL's and HC's ruled the game from the barb tribe games, but are almost non-present in the Roman games.

Just a guess, but I would attribute this to the Human barb player agressively seeking contacts and pushing tech research and trading, so that even as every human barb beelined for the SoG, the other barb tribes also were sped along the research path, both from trading and knowing one another. Thus all got Warlords in roughly the same timeframe, which was considereably earlier. In the Rome games, although some start out knowing one another due to the locked alliances, there seemed to be little other contact, at least between the Goths and the western european tribes, as I seem to remember the vizigoths not even knowing of the Vandals until quite late. It also seems that several tribes took detours into the main tech tree, which in the Human barb game was equalized by the human trading barb techs for those, bringing them all up to speed.

 

[Arathorn]

I can't remember the last time I've seen Arathorn report such a dismal set of turns.

Here, perhaps?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=793201#post793201

It was about the same feeling.

I think if I played it again with a different seed 20 times, I'd lose at least 3 cities in 15 of them. It was brutal.

It is ODD in that WL's and HC's ruled the game from the barb tribe games,

Not really. In the barb games, at this point in time, we were just getting into pillagers and SoC, really. Most of the barb games took ~120 turns. The Rome games are taking more like 80-90. It was only in the last 50 turns of the games as barbs that the barbs really got into WLs and WCs. (This is largely due to all the extra combat VPs the Romes get, pushing them to 35,000 much faster than in the regular FoR scenario.)

Add in the known poor research and building performance of the AI while in war (and they were in essentially AW, from their perspective) and it's not that surprising to me. Delays were inevitable. The delays in settling were a bit of a surprise to me (and problematic, I agree), exacerbating what would already be a slowed tech pace (the human very often accelerates the tech pace by lots of trading).

On top of all that, you have one aggressive Rome in each scenario, actively limiting the trading of multiple barb civilizations (the Franks and Visigoths by allying them against the other barbs AND the civ(s) attacked early). PLUS, the Romes are the normal conduit by which the barbs get extra contacts for lower tech prices and trading and that was eliminated, too. Of course the tech is going to go significantly slower.

I find that not-odd at all, once I start thinking about it.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Justus, who made similar points but much more succinctly than I did. [/EDIT]

As for the people involved, I apologize to anyone offended. Remarks were intended to only be about the scenario balance. Any slight to players was unintentional and not meant, I assure you.

Arathorn

 

[Rubberjello]

I pretty much agree with the general assesment others have brought up. Both W. Rome and E. Rome plays differently and provides a different set of challenges at different times. I WILL, however, back up Arathorn's general declaration that the Eastern Romans have it tougher during the initial stages. I was there right after him, and let me tell you, it was very dicey. With only a TOTAL of 3 Legions and 2 Horses in all the empire and being invaded by the Huns and Sassinids at the same time...*shudder*. One or two unlucky battle results and it would have been all over for us.

Nowhere did I see that perilous of a situation in the W. Rome game. In response to the charge that W. Rome took the battle to the foes early - well, so did E. Rome. If you will notice though, after an initial success of getting 3-4 cities, our entire expeditionary force against the Ostros and the Sassinids were wiped out to the man!

A very fun and challenging scenario. A little too challenging (without a hazardous warning label! ) for general release to the non-civfanatics.
Thanks Gobi for putting work into it. Thanks to the rest of the team (both East and West) for the fun time and good write-ups.

The only suggestion I have is maybe reduce some of the victory point locations or make them generate less VP per turn. It would lengthen the game somewhat and allow the wonders and Church builds to kick in. As it stands, Justinian's will hardly ever complete before a VP win is at hand.

 

[Charis]

Only my second turn, but the final one. Rubberjello led us to the brink, and sparked
off our Golden Age. Let's go out with a bang!

[0] 484 - 33,145 VP, and our two armies are on the march in Hun territory, plus one upon
Ruse! Two more are in old Ostro area, and one more on the way.
IBT - The treacherous and useless Franks sign on with Vandals against WRome.
Our MPP soon kicks in, and the Franks formally request to die.

[1] 486 -33,395 VP. Even with no kills, this game won't outlast my reign. But who said
anything about no kills?! We soon see a Raider is worth 10VP, which equals its shields,
and Warlord 70, etc. We kill 3WL and 3Raiders, plus a spear and horse.
IBT - Shoot... darn Franks!! They bring the *vizigoths*, our long time allies, into
an alliance vs WRome. 8-\ I hope no Vizis are near enough to Rome to trigger.

[2] 488 - 33,985 VP. We stick by our Vizigoth friends. We buy THEM into an alliance with us
vs the Franks, for Dyes, Wines and 2gpt. They recognize the treachery of the Franks.
The WL's do not attack the armies IBT, btw. Even though they could beat it with a 6:1
advantage, they can't see past the fact that one on one they will lose.

At Ruse, a spearman from Mount Olympus itself fends off a legion army at over
half strength, and we lose an army (sheeeesh).

[3] 490 - 34,445 VP. 3 Hun WL and one spear fall. Our western armies run into the
Vandals and hit their small cities, killing 3 spears. 34,735, no more units to go.
VP from locations should end it now... IBT... nothing.

[4] 492 AD - 34,985 VP! (Missed by that one spearman loss! )
It's fitting then that the battle to put us over the top is versus a spear, for
the Hun city of Kazaniak, and even more fitting, that attack 'liberates' the city!



For good measure we hit another WL, the prng is unhappy, and takes us down to 1HP from
over half again. But... we win Next, Cirta of Vandals is razed. I hit return,
a WL loses to our hurt army, and...



21 hrs, 21 mins. 35,715 VP was the final tally, A-S two cities from elim.
WRome had 24,180, and we were on turn 85.

Way to go team! --
Justus_II
Arathorn
Rubberjello
Charis
Aggie

RBC12J Eastern Rome Final pre-victory Save

Special thanks to Gobi Bear for a fun scenario
Charis

 

[Gobi Bear]

I'm going to try and get some other opinions as to the difficulty here before finalizing the scenario. You guys are the pros, and you managed these games without a significant challenge.

I do like some of the suggestions though. Changing VP to 20 per site to lengthen the game might work very well. I also agree that moving the harbor from Alexandria to Asia Minor makes sense too. And we'll lock the Ostrogoths at war (as allies of the Huns BTW ... they were a client state to the Huns throughout this period).

Any other changes you all think would improve things?

 

[akots]

Don't know but it looks very easy indeed. May be some iron in the forest for Vandals? And less VP for a location? Or some extra starting cities for barbarians? The problem is that even on DG, AI's just don't make enough firepower for a challenge before they die. Well, West Rome has not won yet... Who knows how it turns out...

 

[Aggie]

Good game all, despite the fact that I only had one go

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The specific WRome feeling is not the immediate pressure like you experienced it around Cappadocia, but the permanently pending threat. You know you can never defend all those outlying cities against a real enemy. If you make a mistake/the AI a brilliant move (like slipping a Galley through), you lose a city or more.
So WRome is more a psychological challenge...

It is ODD in that WL's and HC's ruled the game from the barb tribe games,

True. But they all know the Tech since ages, in our game the Huns built the SoD around turn 65, and all remaining Barb tribes have started Justinian's (thus they know Mil Trad as well) shortly after. Their problem is, they don't have any resources. Because the human Roman will incite them to War in the very first turn, they cannot expand like usually, and they don't connect anything.
Compare that with the mostly peaceful world in the Barbarian games.
In the WR game, our main goal was always to remove the Vandal cities close to Iron, and keep both the AS and Franks from settling their Iron. Once the Visigoths had it, they needed to go. Because of this, we could only face Celtic WL, and Hun HC.

 

[Charis]

I agree with Doc's assessment... "So WRome is more a psychological challenge..." against "the permanently pending threat. You know you can never defend all those outlying cities against a real enemy."

Gobi Bear, you commented

I'm going to try and get some other opinions as to the difficulty here before finalizing the scenario. You guys are the pros, and you managed these games without a significant challenge.

Not true, fortunately! In the Western game, Doc called that "one of the most intense SG's I've played", and Arathorn saw the second most brutal player turn in an SG that's he's probably seen. There was significant challenge, it's just that we overcame it and reached a point where we felt as powerful as we felt our great empires "should" feel.

I also hesitate to point this out, but... since it will affect 'final design' of the scenario, I also need to point out that some/many of the players involved here are waaaay above average, guys who make up difficult mods or self-rules that hamstring on *Deity*, and then proceed to win. This is NOT a group on which to base proper difficulty for 'general release of a scenario', rather one on which to double check 'I haven't made this unwinnable have I?" I think part of the sense of 'respect' we had coming into the game was your comment that testers of this scenario did not win, and most did not come close. I think if many 'good players/testers' fell short, and if fanatic players end up thinking they had a good game that could have been lost with just a few bad turns, you're spot on!

Regarding other changes... something that would help the end-game challenge without making it impossible in the beginning would be increased contacts between nations. I think if we saw WL's about 20 turns earlier it would have been about right. More than 20 and the difficulty for most folks would be unbearable, and less than 20 will see them having no impact on the game. This 20 turns could be achieved I think with a few more contacts and if needed a little more economic benefit, like an extra few markets in key barb cities? Alternately, or in combination, reducing the VP per turn for locations would lengthen the game, which would be a good thing if not overdone. Then the fear of losing 8 cities to increasing numbers of WL and HC becomes more of a reality (or at least more psychologically imposing). As suggested by others, just a small amount of extra horses or irons would be good. They should be in places where an aggressive and skilled human could manage to knock them out, but not so easy that taking a barb border city would emasculate a foe. I also think the idea of one more harbor for ERome is needed, that trade route is WAY to fragile between your 'real core' and your capital.

Thanks,
Charis

PS If you're new to the Succession game theme, may I suggest perusing the following seminal games as ones not to miss...
Scouting Sid
Defiant Chinese Nationalists
RBE2 A small world afterall
LK53 Deity 5CC Conquest

 

[Justus II]

Well, Charis beat me to the punch, but I was also going to respond to

and you managed these games without a significant challenge

It was definitely a challenge, for me the first ten was a tightrope to get our economy on track, while striking out with our early legions, and I know their counterattack was pretty devastating.

I also agree with him in recommending giving the barb tribes more iron, or at least early access to it. I think this would answer Doc's point, while also tying in to my earlier suggestion about having them 'pre-settled' with a couple towns. Just give them one or two towns with iron already connected. IIRC, as the Vandals, we had 2-3 iron sources to our south, and of course we made a beeline to settle there and connect, but the AI doesn't, and therefore handicaps themselves. If they started with one of their migrants replaced by a town on/near the iron, they would be more likely to build the advanced units. Especially with being at war from the start, the AI's worker actions are severely handicapped, and they never have put much priority on connecting resources anyway. (See the fact that WEST Rome established the luxury colonies in the Sinai, when East Rome has owned that area since the start!) It wouldn't affect the early game, but would mean their units get progressively tougher, as I think the scenario intended.

I like Charis' point about making them reachable, not "gimme" cities disconnected from their core, but not the capital either. I would think if each tribe began with 2-3 cities, at least one of which was connected to iron, it should do the trick. Now maybe the neutral civs (Franks/Vizigoths) wouldn't have it connected, giving the player a little more to bargain with, that might make things interesting. Do you empower your allies, at the risk of them turning on you? (I know West Rome had that discussion, and that makes for good strategic decisions).

I'm not sure how much can be done to increase their rate of contacts with one another, although I think the Ostro-Hun alliance is a step in that direction, as it makes it easier/more likely for the Huns to get contacts with the other barbs through the Ostros.

I do like the reduced VP bonus as well, I think especially playing as the Romes, the challenge should be to defeat the barbarian onslaughts, not just hold out long enough for the win. Although we did go out and destroy the Ostros, I think after defeating the Sassinids, we could have "turtled" and rode out the points to victory, fighting a war of attrition with the Huns in the mountains. Then again, that gets back to how easy that would be if they had Warlords and HC! Lower VPs would also make it more likely to get through the tech tree, and you would see more churches, etc. created.

 

[Arathorn]

I have a number of suggestions. Feel free to use any/all/none of them. I'll also explain my reasoning behind most of them.

Relatively straight-forward:

1. Let the barbs start with more cities and fewer migrants. Reason: The AI does not settle intelligently while at war and a few cities in place will give them a quicker start.

2. Give the barbs the ability to trade contacts with no tech required. This should help speed up their contact trading, as civs from the two "camps" (Celts, A-S, Vandals and Ostrogoths, Huns, Sassanids) meet, the contacts will spread around fairly quickly and give them better research.

3. Move the Alexandria harbor to Asia Minor, as others have said. I don't think a second harbor should come pre-built, but the human can build one in Alexandria, if it is desired/required.

4. Make Ostrogoths a locked alliance with the Huns against ERome.

5. I'd leave VP/site at 25 myself. The game ending too early isn't the problem I see -- I see the problem as the human-run Romes get way too powerful -- both teams were strongly on the offense by the end of the game and a few warlords wouldn't have changed that. It wasn't the VPs from sites that were the problem. Ideally, though, I think they should be. That ties in with....

More zany ideas:

Before I get into these, let me explain...I envision the two Romes at this point as tired giants -- still quite powerful but with very little left in the tank. Both teams, by the end, were in a very powerful situation, where they could run over pretty much any threat on the board. I feel this is wrong -- I think the Romes should wane in power as the game progresses, not grow dramatically. With that in mind, I offer these ideas:

1. Don't let either Rome build settlers. The Roman people are satisfied with their life -- no need to go out and form a new city. Gameplaywise, this makes economic ruin always a very real possibility. Alternatively, have settlers be very expensive (40 shields and 3 pop points, for example) and/or come with a late technology.

2. Increase the price of legions to about 80 shields and give both Romes a few more (4 or so each?) to start the game. I *think* this would give the waning feel I envision -- the Romes would start stronger but should fade faster and further, I think, with fewer and/or inferior reinforcements. I'd like to see some way to limit HCav, too, but I don't have a good specific suggestion in mind that would slow the Rome's adoption of HCav, but give barbs civs like the Huns a good chance to use them.

3. Don't let Rome build workers. This one might be too extreme, but captured/purchased slaves can do SOME work and legions are allowed to build roads, so they're not completely crippled. But this one is probably overboard. I mention it, though, because it has some possibilities.... Maybe workers cost 2 pop instead of 1?

==================
Keep in mind, these suggestions are coming from a guy who:
- Has never designed a scenario
- Likes wickedly hard variants/games
- Has a limited historical perspective

Thanks Gobi Bear for sharing this scenario/conquest with us! And thanks to my team for a very fun game.

Arathorn

 

[Justus II]

@Arathorn,

I agree with your straight-forward points, except I still think as the Romans the VP points put the clock in your favor, which doesn't make as much sense to me. Either decrease the VP/site, or increase the victory limit (50,000??).
As for your 'zany' ideas:
1. I don't like the idea of removing settlers, as it takes away too much strategic choice/flexibility. Increasing the cost might help, but not too much, maybe 40 shields. 3 pop is too much, IMHO.
2. I thought Legions were about right. There were enough for a limited offensive at the start, but they were still difficult to build in all but the best core cities. Too many more at start might have allowed an early knockout blow vs. one opponent, and that would be too much. I tend to agree more with your Heavy Cav points. It should be simple enough to just create two different "heavy cav" class units, one for the Romes (Cataphract) with a higher cost, maybe 80 shields, and one for the barbarians (Mounted Warlord or whatever) but make it cheaper, maybe 60 shields.
3. No workers=no colonies=no luxuries=no economy=
Seriously, I think workers are such a basic part of the strategy, they have to remain as is, the unit support already acts to limit them, IMHO. The idea of using Legions for roads was appealing before I started, I planned on using them to connect extra sources of horse, assist with the lux roads, etc, but the Sassinids quickly gave them something better to do.....

I would also echo Charis' caution about gauging the difficulty too much by these teams. I consider myself still in the learning mode, but some of these other players are used to overcoming some pretty amazing challenges. If you hamstring the players too much (especially workers, settlers, changing the basics), I think it would change it from a Challenging (but fun) scenario into a frustrating (non-fun) exercise for most players. It was still a challenge for the expert players, and after all, this was ONLY Demigod...

 

[Arathorn]

Either decrease the VP/site, or increase the victory limit (50,000??).

I still really just don't understand this suggestion/point. Is it absolutely necessary for Rome to wipe out ALL the barbarian tribes? If the game would have taken longer, we would have wiped out the Huns fairly easily and probably would have made inroads into whatever other tribe we chose -- probably the Vandals by geography and our friendship with the Visigoths.

The game was over...why beat it in? We were the most dominant force on the planet, military, scientifically, economically, and every other way. More time would've just had us pushing out further and further.

Am I missing something here? Can you elaborate on this?

I'd like the clock to be an issue, but we were so powerful, it simply wasn't. Ideally, this scenario would end with the human having lost 7 cities and at 34,900 VPs, needing to hold one or two cities from the last assault for victory. At least, in my mind, that's ideal....

It should be simple enough to just create two different "heavy cav" class units, one for the Romes (Cataphract) with a higher cost, maybe 80 shields, and one for the barbarians (Mounted Warlord or whatever) but make it cheaper, maybe 60 shields.

I could/would be happy with that. I still think legions are too "cheap" mid-game, though.

BUT....

I would also echo Charis' caution about gauging the difficulty too much by these teams.

This is definitely a valid point of consideration. I probably didn't stress enough how much some people (e.g. me) like really hard scenarios and set-ups. I doubt most people would like to play what I would, so take most "zany" comments with generous helpings of salt.

I do *really* like the idea, though, of making Rome stronger initially (slightly) but generally weakening instead of strengthening, if that could be done.

Arathorn

 

[Justus II]

My point on increasing the VP total, or reducing the per-turn amounts, isn't intended to drag out a "won" game. Youi're right, making those changes without changing anything else is overkill. My thinking is that beefing up the AI (contacts, Iron, settling, etc) to make them stronger won't do any good if the human can still just sit back, set up a kill zone, and amass VPs faster as more valuable units walk in to die. I would almost rather take the VPs out of the equation, and just make the challenge be for Rome to survive against increasing hordes of barbarians. But at least minimizing them, or making the limit higher, puts more emphasis on survival. The more you beef up the AI, the more potential VPs they in effect generate in available unit kills, and if the rest of the VP equation remains the same, it just seems that it gets easier, not more difficult, as you can be more aggressive, knowing you don't have to survive them all, just race to the VP ceiling. I could be wrong about this, though, it's hard to judge.

Definitely limiting Heavy Cav, or making them more expensive, would seem to limit Rome's ability to go on the offensive. Also, maybe the starting legions need to begin closer to the core, with garrisons at the borders, to limit the offensive strike capability? The biggest factor in going on the offensive, however, is obviously Armies. Once you get 2-3 of those, I think you are on the downhill slope to victory no matter what conditions, because the AI won't attack them, even with 6 warlords or whatever. But that's not as easy to fix!

 

[Rubberjello]

Originally posted by Arathorn
I still really just don't understand this suggestion/point. Is it absolutely necessary for Rome to wipe out ALL the barbarian tribes? Arathorn

I originally brought up the point because as the game stands, the tech tree, Wonders, and infrastructure (churches) don't come into play hardly at all. Without reworking the tech tree altogether, I thought extending the game would be a simplistic solution. Not in order to kill more Barbs, but to rebuild the empire and start incorporating Christianity into the Polytheism culture.

 

[Charis]

Others are hinting at the reason for the suggestion for decreasing VP rate or increasing limit, but I'll be more explicit.

Do so adds a third "point of interest to the game". By itself, as discussed, it does nothing but prolong a won game. In combination with faster barb contact/research, the goal would be to add tension in the end game.

With such a change, the human has three ways to lose:
- Poor initial strategy (ie, playing a passive waiting game)
- Poor initial tactics (getting defeated in the early rough part)
- Insufficient strat/tactics in the end game (losing to the increasingly powerful barbarians)

It's virtually impossible to design a scenario that is on the edge of winning/losing throughout the whole game, especially for a wide audience. Doing better than the average results in a coasting win, while doing worse leads to inevitable defeat. What *is* possible, and what is very seldom seen in an Epic game, is that ability to have a close call at the beginning, and have a period of relative power and growth to be followed by a end-of-game challenge that is race-against-the-clock. Strengthening the power-growth-rate of the barbarians is what can lead to that end-of-game tension. Cutting instead the human power-growth-curve can do this as well, so I think Arathorn and others were coming at it from the opposite angle toward the same result. Increasing the initial power (more legions, etc) however loses the appeal of the early game onslaught.

As for the zany options, I think they make RB Variant ideas, but would not be good ones to include in the base game design. Increasing Legion cost, or giving them a weaker HC than the barbarians is not a bad idea. This leaves the early game assault intact, and slows our military power curve such that we *do* need to fear and endgame where we have been too passive or the barbs too strong such that we see WL and full HC vs Legions and Cataphracts.

Neither do I like what I think Justus is suggesting at limiting the 'early strike' capability of the Romans. May I point out that making such a strike is a great strategic decision that not everyone will make. It was quickly decided upon in both games here, but with much discussion, and with players not to "invade a nation with 3 offensive units" -- I would bet more than half of average players would think their chances too poor and play a turtle game (which they would lose). Removing the early strike capability would be a very serious blow against the game design, imho. Justus does point out a real problem though. With 2-4 armies, you can march them around and take out city after city, and the AI will go *around* them with a stack of a dozen or two warlords that could easily shread them. It's too late to fix that for Civ3, but I hope this issue is addressed in Civ IV
At least to make it a little better... should barbs or everyone get a '3' defender? That would hurt Romans alot more, 4 vs 3 instead of 4 vs 2, but have less impact on barbs, WL vs 2 or vs 3.

Charis

 

[Justus II]

I think my comments about limiting the early strike capability (putting legions closer to the core) was more in response to Arathorn's suggestion for 3-4 more legions at the start. If we add legions, I would put them closer to the core, so they would not overload that initial strike. The "spoiling attack" we conducted to disrupt and weaken our opponents seemed about right. It certainly proved to be a good move, even though it came at a cost, which is part of what makes for good strategic decisions. But if there were another 3-4 legions available on either front, or even 2 on each, it might increase the odds of a true knock-out blow, which I think is then unbalancing. Especially as increasing the number of legions increases the chances for elites, and then a leader. With 3-4 legions, every one was busy every turn, just to make progress, and then survive (which they didn't). However, it wouldn't take too many more to tip the balance, (especially if you get an early leader), and taking out the Sassanids by turn 20 could mean a very boring scenario.

 

[akots]

Sounds trivial, but I would completely support Charis. Scenarios are rather funny to play and more or less lie within historical context. If Rome does nothing building up some defences in fear of forthcoming barbarian hordes, Rome is dead. If Rome fights back early, Rome wins. DG is challenging enough level and most of casual players do not go probably above Monarch. Besides, people like to win. The only real improvement is MAKE THE BETTER AI. Well, this is not to be addressed at Great Gobi Bear who with the team made fantastic job. Just wanted to say big thanks for an opportunity to play this scenario at CFC.

 

[Seymen]

Fall of Rome - C3C Scenario - Succession Game series
RBC12J - Eastern Roman Empire

During the course of the RBC Series playing the Fall of Rome conquest, the scenario designer, Gobi Bear, offered to give us access to a modified version of the Fall of Rome scenario, in which the two halves of the Roman Empire were playable, called Rome Everlasting:


We are putting together a team to explore this version, and see how long we can hold off the barbarians! Difficulty for this one is Demigod, all other settings are normal. We are using C3C Version 1.15. See the general thread here for rules, but nothing special beyond the usual RB list of non-exploits. (Dastardly non-exploits are fine, as typical, with one worker per civ thru turn 50) (Link to RBCiv Exploits Here )
Normal SG rules also (24 hours for "got it", 48 hours to post, 10 turns per player).

Edit: Updated Roster
Justus II
Charis
RubberJello
Arathorn
Aggie

This WILL be a very interesting and challenging game, you will see from the next post that although we start with some advantages (Strong military, VP locations, advanced in tech), we are also struggling to maintain a crumbling empire. Because of the locked alliances, this will probably play similar to an Always War game, although we do have West Rome as a locked ally, and there are two "neutrals", Franks and Vizigoths, who are not locked in war. The other races begin the game at war with us, and we start with 50%+ War Weariness

Come join the challenge, and keep Byzantium safe from the Barbarian Hordes!

EDIT: Here is a link to the scenario, with a word file with instructions. Rome Everlasting

Also updated roster.

The URL link is to the Fall of Rome as East or West Romans is gone. How can I get the Everlasting_Rome.zip scenario in 2024?