Fall of Rome - Strategy

[Apricorn]

Hello, this is my first post here.
Been playing the Fall of Rome on Monarch.
First game was as the Anglo Saxons, found the starting position very difficult as no victory point locations anywhere near, and had no iron. Time was running out, normally I would have waited until Id built up a good power base but this being a 150 turn game, and my victory points were pretty pathetic so I had to act fast. I made the plan to go to war against the Franks to capture iron locations on the map. The idea was that after Id defeated them Id push south and take the Roman Cities in Gaul that were Victory point location before finally pushing east towards Northern Italy itself. Howver, the Franks were too strong for me and after I initially took a city that had iron deposits they counter attacked in force, Id only just got the ability to build warlords at that point and they had them for a while. I soon lost my only source of iron and soon after my standing army was wiped out and other cities were falling. My only other hope was a small invasion force Id sent to England to try and take Londonium, but unfortumately Id underestimated the strength of the garrison there and that too was wiped out. With no iron, no army and a large Roman invasion force on the way as well as the marauding Franks, I retired.
My next game, Im playing as the Celts. Ive started off pretty well, I gambled and attacked the Romans in England earlier than Id liked, but it paid off after a couple of close shaves. Ive taken all their cities in england (including the VP location and my VPs are now 3rd behind the East and West Roman Empires. I now plan to invade mainland Europe with my forces and take the Roman cities in France before pushing east and taking the victory point locations in Northern Italy (by this time the Western Romans should have been eliminated due to the 8 city loss)
However Eastern Romans already have over half the VPs they need to win and they are too far away for me to attack. So I fear my efforst have been in vain. Starting to think this scenario might only be winable if you start in a central position with close access to both the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empure. Anybody else have any strategy tips to this effect? Do you think Id need to launch a long distance attack against the Eastern Romans directly? Im pretty sure that otherwise theyd reach the winning number of VP before me How did you win this conquest? Would be interested to hear

 

[Chauliodus]

Sassanids start in a good position plus they begin with 2 heavy calvary (5.3.3), all the resources you need and around 8 cities meaning you can crank out alot of horsemen.

I knocked out the ERE easy, taking the lil town next to your civ with ease, then pushing to take Ceasarea(sp) and Antioch, force built two galleys, sending a force to take Cyprus and Crete, with another force to take Alexandria (Great Lighthouse), then sent the Alexandria force to Libya to take the city there, finally mass attacked Cappadocia (sp). All that killed the ERE, then I built a mass navy to invade Italy while I sent calvary to take the three WRE cities in North Africa.

Once you get the Great Lighthouse you can zip around the Mediterranean like crazy. But one odd thing I noticed was my galleys speed was 5, don't know where I got the 5th one from.

 

[rabies]

Originally posted by Cockinbum

Once you get the Great Lighthouse you can zip around the Mediterranean like crazy. But one odd thing I noticed was my galleys speed was 5, don't know where I got the 5th one from.

Is the civ you played Seafaring? If so, they get one extra movement point....and with the great lighthouse, that would bump you from 3 to 5.

 

[woobrew]

I played this Conquest as the Franks, and you're right, with the limited number of turns, you have to get right into the action. My strategy was to build a couple of cities on the Western Roman border and then put all of my efforts into building an attack force. I was able to sieze the Victory locations in Gaul and London, and with the units you receive from victories, you're able to continue your drive towards Rome. Diplomacy and alliances are very crucial with this Conquest as they are with most of the new scenarios. I was able to keep several of the other Civs at war with Western & Eastern Rome, throughout the scenario. By keeping the East in a virtual state of war, I was able to conquer the West, without ever sending a unit east. I would however recommend that you keep track of how many cities have fallen, so you can make sure your troops, settlers are in place to seize the Victory locations when Rome collapses. Once Rome collapses, you do need to head east fast, to destroy the Eastern Romans before they reach the required number of points. I was able to bring about their collapse, with only about 5 turns to spare. Once they are knocked-out, you can pick and choose your battles, and should be able to coast to victory...

 

[JustBen]

I remain completely unconvinced that it's worth your while to build anything more advanced than a Marauder. It costs about half of what the Pillager costs and is no worse protected from counterattacks. Warlords bothered me because they step up to defend (8.3.1 are they?) in place of every other unit I can build (excepting Cavalry I suppose, but I never bought tech that advanced).

Am I wrong?

 

[microbe]

Originally posted by Apricorn
Starting to think this scenario might only be winable if you start in a central position with close access to both the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empure. Anybody else have any strategy tips to this effect?

I was Visogoth and I also acted slow: started war at around turn 85. Enough time to beat Eastern Rome but not Western. Luckily Celts just eliminated Western Rome in time, and I got the access to most of the VP!

I guess you could not expect to win all by yourself. You should ally with as many CIVs as possible and let them fight for you if you cannot do it yourselves.

 

[Svar]

I played a couple of times as the Huns and always waited too long to attack Rome but both times was able to eliminate both before they could win. In the last try I won with almost no victory locations I just kept eliminating other civs and won with conquest and unit killed points.

 

[Padmewan]

You've got to get the rest of the barbarians on the other side of the world allied against whichever half of Rome you can't get to.

In my game, Regent / Celts, I took out Rome and pretty much took out half of Eastern -- the Sassinids took 4 cities and I took 4, luckily I took the final one that did 'em in.

Make sure before the cities fall that you have troops nearby the monuments to control them -- the AI barbarians are quick to seize them otherwise.

This is probably a function of playing at Regent / normal aggression, but I found myself building an empire in Western Europe. Prolly not such a great idea at higher levels since 8 cities captured = elimination, but for me that extra production gave me a HUGE army that wiped out the A-S when their time came (and their time did come...)

 

[The Economist]

I played as the Celts on Monarch- and won.

I built up some forces and took England (which has a VP location), and then recruited EVERY barbarian nation to declare war against Western Rome. The next turn, the mutual protection pact was activated, and Eastern Rome declared war on everyone except its locked ally.

Western Rome quickly fell. I finished the "Scourge of God" wonder. Then I sent ships with units to secure VP locations, and then Eastern Rome fell as well.

Then I built up a few Warlords and calvary, and started wiping out the other barbarian countries. I got them to declare war on each other to keep them busy. In the end, there were only 3 of us left, I was about to kill one of them, but I won when time ran out.

So its definitely beatable with the Celts, in fact, for me my attempts to beat it with other civs failed miserably lol

 

[zurichuk]

the key, point-wise, is to be the civ that destroys the 8th city as you get the points for destroying the other cities that subsequently disappear. On the later levels, not sure about the earlier, the AI barbs still aggressively expand, leaving many weakly defended size 1/2 border cities, it is possible (after the destruction of the 2 roman civs) to get into a position to wipe 8 of these cities in one turn for monster VP's, instant elimination of that civ and a clear map to work with.

 

[benwa73]

agreed with zurichuk, that is the way to get points. I played as Vandals on Monarch and won when I amassed my warlords at the borders of 6 cities in eastern rome, and took the whole civ down in 2 turns.

 

[thestonesfan]

I played as the Anglo-Saxons and lost by a couple turns, as the Byzantines got the VP win when I was a couple turns from sacking their primary cities. It would have been easy, but I didn't pay attention to the turn count. It's easy to put Western Rome out because of their three cities in Britain that are cut off.

I would recommend playing as someone closer to them, like the Goths.

And Warlords are great.

 

[somateria]

Originally posted by zurichuk
the key, point-wise, is to be the civ that destroys the 8th city as you get the points for destroying the other cities that subsequently disappear

I'd like to conduct a mini-poll to see how others feel about the "8th city" issue. Do you think that the civ that destroys the 8th city should get all the victory points for the cities and units that are eliminated along with the opposing civ, or do you think another scoring option would be better for interesting strategic gameplay for this conquest?

My two cents:

I'm playing for the first time as the Vandals. I started attacking late (turn ~85), and managed to take out western Rome just before they hit the 35K VP limit. However, the Celts actually got the 8th city in "Britain" just before I could get one more city in "Italy". Because I noticed the big boost in VP for the Celts, I made sure to get the 8th Byzantine city and collected ~12,000 VPs. Since then, I'm so far ahead that I will win for sure , but if I hadn't gotten the 8th city I would be far behind. Despite holding alomst 10 VP locations for 50+ turns, these account for only ~25% of my VP total, and the points just for the Byz 8th city account for ~60% of my VPs. This seems to make VP locations non-8th city conquests largely inconsequential, as winning is mainly about getting 8th cities.

IMO, the race for VP among the barbarians after the fall of Rome would be more interesting if it focused on holding VP locations and "regular" conquest VPs. I would vote for reduced or no extra VPs for taking the 8th city.

 

[Salamandre]

Take Sasanides, they are the easiest to win, huge lead in techs, town already builds, and much money income, safe setup, they are the first civ to play this scenario before taking the others. Make sure while you beat ass of byzantines you pay everyone to kill the romans, you cant go for both in 150 turns from that location. Dont discover heavy cavalery before you have 100+ cavalery, so you can upgrade them in no time.80 gold/unit is not big deal.

Position 15 heavy cavalery in front of 8 byzantines towns, take them same turn then proced same with huns and ostrogoths and game is yours

PS: may not work below monarque/emperor, you need civs to be agressive with romans, little fights will just give romans VP that you dont want them to get

 

[zurichuk]

Originally posted by somateria
IMO, the race for VP among the barbarians after the fall of Rome would be more interesting if it focused on holding VP locations and "regular" conquest VPs. I would vote for reduced or no extra VPs for taking the 8th city. [/B]

advanced strategy is required, sure, and it caught me out the first time I played it, however that's why I enjoy this scenario, planning the attack to get the last city and be the one responsible for the collapse of the empire (which i guess is what this rule represents)

and if you get beaten to the 8th and have time, then eliminate the civ that took it I've said it before in another thread, and I'll repeat it here, I think the easy levels on this scenario means the AI doesn't grow sufficiently fast enough to do two things (create a decent military to help in attacking the 2 Roman Empires, and expand more themselves leaving fewer vulnerable border towns to attack and exploit, I would imagine in Chieftain / Warlord the human has to do most of the work))

 

[Apricorn]

Some interesting replies.

Originally posted by woobrew
. Diplomacy and alliances are very crucial with this Conquest as they are with most of the new scenarios. I was able to keep several of the other Civs at war with Western & Eastern Rome, throughout the scenario.

Unfortunately the only civ that i was able to persuade to join me in my war against the Eastern Romans were one of the weakest, and the war probably helped the E romans more than hindered them by giving them more VPs! I didnt want anyone to join my war against the W Romans inb case they took that sacred eighth city before me!

Its now turn 91, Ive just wiped out the western Romans, by takin their 8th city. I have 16,500 VPs and my main rival E Romans have 25,000. Noone else really has a chance of winning it though my neighbours, the Franks seen to have a v powerful military, Ive already been at war with them once and they wiped out my allies the Anglo Saxons. So I have a choice now: Send out my units en masse to occupy the Victory locations vacated by the Western Romans (I only hold three at present) or attack the Franks, and hope that the number of unit kills and city conquests will boost my VPs enough to reach 35000 before the East Romans. Or maybe a bit of both. Trouble is, my cities on mainland Europe are suffering from a lot of corruption, due to the distance from the Capital up in Scotland. May well go for a relocation of the Palace. Not sure if its worth building it though with only 60 turns left.

 

[Goober]

I am still trying this conquest, I tried to be the Sassinads, but didn't get too far. They are just too far away from the bulk of the Roman Cities. I am currently trying as the Visigoths, and I chose them because they are fairly central to all the VP's. Do you get VP's by conquering cities, or getting land? Anyway, I'm not doing so well as the Visigoths, the stupid legions keep on attacking and killing the barbarian units, very annoying. I also did not start attacking soon enough.

 

[Roadrunna]

I think you get the points for killing units, conquests, holding the obelisk points and researching.

I won with the Anglo-Saxons on regent even though I stupidly put a city on England before starting a war with Western Rome. That was about turn 50 but i didnt do any fighting with them for 30 turns.

In total I think I took out 3 roman cities on my own and let the others take them out. Then I allied barbarians against themselves and I went in and grabbed all of the victory points left behind and cleaned up with the warlords that I hoarded over the whole game.

When I went to play the rise of rome scenario, I found that I really missed the unlimited unit support and the enslave of the warlords (since I used them as a preemptive defense, which added a Marauder to the defense of the cities that I was protecting)