Fall of Rome by difficulty and playstyle

[arand86]

Hey Forum!

I love playing civ, and have become proficient enough to pop the occasional win on deity. However, I've rarely played any of the Scenarios, and if I do, it's for 50 turns until I get bored (Civil war excluded). They often don't seem to be interesting, and I don't want to muck through hours of test-playing civs to figure out which ones are fun to play.

So I thought we could make a thread on it, where we could rank civilizations in scenarios and provide some insight for players like myself. A thread for all of them would be too big, so I chose Fall of Rome as a first thread, since it appears to be popular, and I like it more than Scramble for Africa

Last note is that like I said, excluding the Civil war, I'm not very familiar with any scenario, so bear with me if I'm horrendously wrong

If this thread works out well, I may do a couple for other scenarios, or feel free to do so yourself.

Key: * = never played significantly

Fall Of Rome
1. Huns- Seem to be the easiest side to take; you start with a substantial army that runs at the speed of sound, and all you need to do is take out a 1-2 pop Sassanid city to get a couple free rams to wreck the rest of the world with.
2. Celts- The battle bonus is really nice.
3. Eastern Rome*- You have the Sassanids halfheartedly fighting you from the east and maybe some goths up north, and the huns finally when they tear through Persia. West Rome has much weaker cities, so logic would dictate that the goths try the west first? The Sassanids can't afford to launch a very big attack either with the huns gobbling at them from the north
4. Franks- Name of the game is trying to avoid conflicts with the celts, but otherwise decent
5. Goths- Ability not all that useful nor fun. Pillages are basically one time deals.
6. Vandals*- ability sounds lackluster
7.West Rome*- You're the target for everyone but the huns. Crap.
8. Sassanids*- The huns are to the north, and you can't do anything to stop them, short of lining all your troops up on your northern border before they arrive, and try to shuffle accordingly. But that leaves you wide open to a roman invasion from the west.


I'd appreciate any contributions!

 

[joncnunn]

Huns: Yes, that is their bonus

Downside:

City connections are not possible without building an extremely long road that would probably never pay for itself. (You can't build a settler to found a much needed city on the black sea)

Your Goth neighboring AI would rather fight you than Rome.

Celts:

Pros: Homeland pretty much secure and have city connection.

Con: Once you land, the Frank AI would rather fight you than Rome.

E Rome:
Con: It's like inheriting a succession game from a total noob. Problems with basic inferstructure and insufficient troops.

Franks: Easy to connect all starting cities for plenty of gold.
Con: AI Celts would rather fight you than Rome

Goths: Their pro is they start with a lot of troops
Cons: Several cities too far away to be practical to connect
AI Huns could overrun all your NE cities. It's going be a tough game long battle to fend them off.

Vandals:
Pro: Homeland is secure; plenty of city connections.
No barbs to worry about while conquering Rome
May be the easiest civ to get the double KO achievement.

Con: The historic route they used to vandalize Rome will cause happiness problems; Expanding to Carthage is great, but there are no luxaries in Silicy or Italy. They may be better off conquering parts of Spain for additional luxuries. (Need to leave Northern Spain in W Rome hands as a buffer though or else Celts & Frank AIs will stop fighting Rome and go after you)

West Rome:
Looks like you inherited a succession game from someone in league with the barbarians.

Sassinids:
Pro: You get extra victory points taking E Rome cities. You should probably take advantage of that before ...

Con: AI Barbs rather fight whoever is playing the human than Rome; which means the Huns will directly attack you; when they'd leave them alone if you were playing E Rome.