Fall of Rome Question

[mieuro]

Am I correct in assuming that the objective of the Fall of Rome Conquest is to capture 8 cities in both the Eastern and Western halves of Roman Empire? I thought the objective was to capture 8 cities in either the Eastern or Western half of the Roman Empire but I was wrong.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Hygro]

the goal is to get the allotted victory points. Destroying the empires just happens to be a good way to do this.

 

[Tranquility]

The goal is to get ht emost VP. Each half of the roman empies have Vp locations(they have all of em). Destroying them will stop them cumulicating the points, and once you destrtoyed their empires, get the VP locations. There are a total of 20(10 each half)

 

[Theoden]

You don't win automatically if you destroy them both. But if you're the one taking the 8th city from them you get VP for destroying the rest

 

[Pook]

You don't win automatically if you destroy them both. But if you're the one taking the 8th city from them you get VP for destroying the rest

Exactly, taking the 8th city is a big boost to your point total. The scenario turns into a race against time as you & your barbarian buddies have to take out both halves of the Roman Empire before either one gets to 35,000 points. After they're gone, you still have to win the point total, and you'll find yourself fighting against your former allies. Last time I played, there were only 3 civs left at game's end.
One big hint: if you're not certain that you can strongly defend a city you have newly conquered, don't take it- raze it. If you lose 8 cities by ANY means including culture flip, you're out of the game. It doesn't matter if you retake the city- it still counts against you as one of your 8. And if you lose it again, it counts twice. Happy pillaging, and remember: "Always pillage BEFORE you burn."

 

[maverick_mw]

Just be aware of signing Alliances with the "Barbarian Buddies", as they have a tendancy to go back on them and fight between themselves, or worse still, against you.

 

[Theoden]

Another hint that I have heard someone else using very well is when you need to take one more city from them. Leave a city near one of their units undefended and keep alot of military near it. they will take the city and you will take it back afterwards ensuring VP for the rest. The downside is however that you get a count yourself and you should only use this if the next city is far away or hard to take.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Exploit!
Another questionable way is to destroy a 1st ring city next to a resource, the AI will resettle that very same spot over and over again; just station a couple of units there, and kill the Spear(or 2 Spears, if Emperor+).

 

[Pook]

Exploit!
Another questionable way is to destroy a 1st ring city next to a resource, the AI will resettle that very same spot over and over again; just station a couple of units there, and kill the Spear(or 2 Spears, if Emperor+).

Doc, how exactly is the "leave a city undefended, then retake it" gambit an exploit? We're all playing by the same rules- "lose 8, you're out". If someone is willing to take a count in order to wipe out another civ, then more power to 'em.
I recognize that in real life, losing 8 cities over a few hundred years would not necessarily destroy an empire. It's an artificial device that's only in this scenario for gameplay, and to help simulate the real-life collapse of the Romans. Happy pillaging!

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The magical "8" were choosen after a lot of testing; for example, it's pretty hard to find 8 Byzantine cities for any Western Civ. It's not a problem to get a couple of cities from anyone but your next neighbor, it's a question of getting those eight required. While you do 'pay' something here in FoR (unlike Middle Ages or Napoleon), it still kills the entire point of the scenario.

 

[collin_stp]

Has anybody own this without destroying the roman empires? Usually one or both of them get close to the maximum victory points before they are destroyed. I would assume that it would be nearly impossible to ammass enough to overtake them except in very rare instances.

Also, it seems everytime I play this scenario, there are usually only three or so civs left at the end, since most of the others are destroyed.

 

[Pook]

Has anybody own this without destroying the roman empires? Usually one or both of them get close to the maximum victory points before they are destroyed. I would assume that it would be nearly impossible to ammass enough to overtake them except in very rare instances.

I agree, I think it'd be near impossible unless someone was playing at a very easy level. It's always a race against time for me as I try to take out both sides of the Roman Empire. I've only played it at emperor level, getting my clock cleaned as the Visigoths, getting close three times as the Anglo-Saxons, and finally winning it as the Vandals.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I have. However, that was playing as Western Rome .

 

[Arathorn]

The team in this thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=78853

would disagree that you can do it on easier difficulty levels. The general consensus was that playing on Sid allowed them to win taking out only the Western half of the Roman empire. Since you get VPs for unit kills, the massive number of units produced on Sid helped them get more VPs/elimination than on easier levels.

Arathorn

 

[Pook]

would disagree that you can do it on easier difficulty levels. The general consensus was that playing on Sid allowed them to win taking out only the Western half of the Roman empire. Since you get VPs for unit kills, the massive number of units produced on Sid helped them get more VPs/elimination than on easier levels.Arathorn

Very interesting. I would never have thought it possible at higher levels- that's counterintuitive. Just how exactly do you stop the massive number of units produced on Sid from annihilating you? I've read your "variant" threads- looks like far more masochism than I'm ready for...

 

[Arathorn]

Well, I wasn't in that game, but they used artillery weapons (catapults) and armies as their main weapons. They defended the islands and primarily razed cities on the mainland, so the AI had no easy targets. The goal of destroying 8 cities really plays to the human's skills and away from the AI's.

The key, though, is that they got massive numbers of VPs for destroying each civ. The destruction of Western Rome wasn't too hard and they got a ton of VPs (20,000 or something ridiculous) because of all the units WRome still had. They nibbled on the edges of the empire, taking full advantage of the 8 city rule without exploiting it (at least, not intentionally, they claim, and I believe them).

I'd recommend checking out the thread, especially the last page where T-hawk discusses some of this, probably more clearly than I am here.

Arathorn

 

[dsranger1]

As with standard Civ, if you have the highest VP point total at the end of the Fall of Rome scenario, you will win the game even if you don't have 35000 VPs. Having wiped out both the Roman and Byzantine Empires, I got up to 33000 or so points, and won on points at the end of round 150.