C3C PBEM : "Pydna" - Rise of Rome scenario (level : newbees)

[LouLong]

I find it strange that it's actually so popular in PBEMs on these forums.

Because it actually is quite balanced.
Now Carthage requires somehow more thinking and planning but I have seen in 2 games at least Carthage winning over poor old Rome (once by Akots at DuelZone and one here (CeD) where Dogboy went all the way up to Rome forcing me to come to the rescue (I was Macedonia).

 

[dgfred]

2 units of Carthage were killed but I don't see reports of the fights...

here is my report:

Siege of Marsala

Veteran Swordsman attacks Legion Army, does 2 dmg and dies.
Regular Archer attacks Legion Army, does 7 dmg and wins. There goes the army, vengeance is fulfilled
Veteran Swordsman attacks and kills redlined Legionary.

Marsala is liberated from the evil rule of Rome and people feasts in the streets.

Nice fighting .

 

[onedreamer]

Heh, lucky fighting you mean
I'm already building a war monument to that heroic archer who managed to defeat the legion

Because it actually is quite balanced.
Now Carthage requires somehow more thinking and planning but I have seen in 2 games at least Carthage winning over poor old Rome (once by Akots at DuelZone and one here (CeD) where Dogboy went all the way up to Rome forcing me to come to the rescue (I was Macedonia).

I would call it balanced if played with 3 human players only (none with Rome). You can't seriously call it balanced if Rome is played by a human player. As Rome, you could possibly loose the war with Carthage only if you sit on your back at the beginning, maybe because of special rules like no fighting on the first 10+ turns. Romans start the game with Legion I (4.3 + HP bonus). Carthaginians start with swordsman (3.2) or spearman (1.2) or archer (2.1). They need elephants for anything "good", including numidians (ridiculous) and elephants are not connected at start. You can not build war elephants until Tactics and Carthage might as well be roman by then. Also, how many elephants are available to Carthage ? And how much iron to Rome ? In such a situation, as Rome there is only one strategy to follow, IMO... Scipio showed us more than 2 thousands years ago
Now if you play it in SP there might still be some challenge to conquer Carthage because of the many units the AI can have... but human vs human... You can plan as much as you want as Carthage but in the end roman units are way better, period. Also, in a MP game you're not the only one planning. Or at least I don't hope that the other player is not planning. You may be lucky once on many times and find a player who adopted a wrong strategy, but if it was me vs me, I know that Carthage would be hopeless. And with time & research the situation only gets worse. I believe the only real hope for Carthage is to have a much stronger fleet than Rome and prevent them to land from the sea in the beginning, and then... hope for the best. And pray the Gods.

 

[James I]

I can't say too much cause my roman player is probably looking at this too, but i'm trying a few ideas......and i may even do a Historical Hannibal thing....

I'm making wool jumpers for my elephants as we speak......

 

[fourth_wise_man]

took city on corsica.
attacked swordsmen on hill next to messina.won lost three health

 

[daufoi]

attacked greek hoplites with 3 horseman. all horseman ran away before dying, killed no one.

 

[oagersnap]

Strange... I haven't got a GPS from onedreamer but still the game seems to have arrived by daufoi.

 

[onedreamer]

sorry, I forgot to send a gps.

 

[Yamamoto]

Heh, lucky fighting you mean



I would call it balanced if played with 3 human players only (none with Rome). You can't seriously call it balanced if Rome is played by a human player. (...) And pray the Gods.

Well you explained very well your arguments, and have a certain reason BUT, I dont agree totally with you.
It not depends all of the Rome strategy but also how the 4 human players strategy effects the going of the game.
Rome is in fact the serious candidat to win but, you have to realise that all the other 3 know that and also are themself trying to win the game.
So, yes, anyone can win in this scenario, IMHO.

Yama

 

[onedreamer]

sank another roman boat in the Thyrrenian sea.
There will be many roman boats to visit for the sub turists of the 21st century

 

[daufoi]

attacked group of holites and catapults.... lost 2 horseman and 1 archer, 1 horseman attacked but ran away.

 

[onedreamer]

The siege of Messana ended with the fall of the city. Lost 3 swordsmen in the process, against 1 Legionary. Finally the whole Sicily is in the hands of its rightful owner: Carthage.

 

[onedreamer]

A Roman galley has been spotted by the strait of Messana. All numidian troops and triremes in Sicily have been ordered to hold the coasts at all costs (game of words ^^). Rome will not be allowed on Sicily anymore !


Few questions for you guys:

1) can you please use this thread more often ?
2) do we allow razing of cities ? I am for forbidding razing of player cities, about AI cities, I don't know, but I'd use the same rule.
3) are there amphibious units in this scenario ?
4) can you please use this thread more often ?

 

[oagersnap]

1) can you please use this thread more often ?

What should we use it for, then?

2) do we allow razing of cities ? I am for forbidding razing of player cities, about AI cities, I don't know, but I'd use the same rule.

I don't really know wether i'm for or against. Forbidding that will, of course, make the millitary conquests go faster, thus making the game more exciting. On the other hand, razing is allowed the game, and I know that some might say thay that this is not the point of the game, but it will make the game more realistic. And forbidding to raze cities will actually also make people stop their millitary conquests at some point, since there is no point in taking a city and be forced to keep it, when you know that the enemy will take it back on the next turn.
Another question that comes up, is: If you are forced to keep a city when you capture it from an enemy, how many turns will you have to wait to abandon that city. Obviously, there is no point in being forced to keep a city, when you can just abandon it on the next turn. So there is pros and cons for both of the options, but I guess my final answer will be, that the players themselves should each decide, wether they'll raze cities or not.

3) are there amphibious units in this scenario ?

Dunno, don't think so.

 

[onedreamer]

if players should decide themselves then you mean that razing is allowed.
I asked because the point of this scenario is to keep cities and not to raze or abandon them, because the goal is controlling as much territory as possible.
I read in some other PBEMs that players agreed on forbidding the raze of cities... so I wanted to discuss it with you guys, before I raze a city and someone says "Hey, you razed a city ! This is unfair in a PBEM". Or something like that.

 

[onedreamer]

What should we use it for, then?

I would like a post like this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110702

 

[daufoi]

attacked with 3 horseman and an archer, 1 horseman and archer died, no greeks died

 

[onedreamer]

Roman legions managed to land on Sicily
The legionaries have been spotted climbing Etna. May the volcano eat them all. General Barca has ordered the carthaginian troops to retire from Messana. Not such a worthy city to have , after all. May the volcano eat that too

Further north, a roman galley has been promptly sunk near Olbia. We hope that roman soldiers are trained in swimming ! Any further activity to scare fishes near Sardinia will be treated in the same way.

 

[fourth_wise_man]

The glorious Roman legions have retaken the city of Messana from the evil Carthinginians. (It was unoccupied).
Long live Rome.

 

[daufoi]

War Update:

attacked group of hoplites/catapults near my city
Casualties: 3 horsemen
2 horsemen ran away
Casualties inflicted: 3 hoplites
Seized Macedonian catapults (I think 7)
Hoplite in the distance was spared his life but I see he approaches my city anyway