Opinion of Fall of Rome Scenario?

CivilizedPlayer

Warlord
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
222
I'm pretty sure there's no official Fall of Rome thread yet, and I definitely haven't seen anyone talking about it here. Everyone's been pretty happy with the Smokey Skies one, but the Into the Rennaissance one got some pretty mixed reviews. What do you all think of the Fall of Rome?
 
Playing Byzantium is hard but not as hard as western Rome you really need follow up with forts since it is part of UA but the scenario is really good for what as I have played.
 
Its pretty good, I think the deck is stacked a bit too much against Rome. I am playing Western Rome on kings now, was having a very smooth sailing. The first few turns were rough, but after 20 turns or so I counterattacked (there must be a lame "the empire strikes back" pun in there). Liberated the few cities the Franks and Celts took, liberated my dumbass Byzantine's cities as well. Then went on the offensive vs. the Franks and Vandals, started capturing their cities as well.

Then I had to adopt the policy which brought my happiness under 10. With the barbarians adopting the +50 % if adjacent combat unit, that means my units have an 83 % disadvantage, which is starting to get a bit frustrating, even more againt the Celts. I have 20 turns left, and have the empire in its original size + vandal territory, so I should be able to win quite easily, but its going to cost me more than a few units. I think there could have been more balance there, especially on the fact that there is nothing you can do about the hapiness thing.
 
I'm a bit sick of perpetual war scenarios, 1066, Mongol Horde, Samurai Invasion, and now this one.
Yeah, as far as those go, Fall of Rome is good, but it is a tired formula. Still fun though :)
 
I actually love this scenario. It reminds me a lot of the Civ III scenario, but they finally placed all the civs in their historical places (like Vandals in North Africa). It could be better, but I am very happy replaying this scenario over and over again :)
 
At least this scenario felt like a scenario..Where you start with units and cities

The into the renaissance just felt like a medieval start normal game

Same goes for The smokey sky one except it has new techs..
 
Its pretty good, I think the deck is stacked a bit too much against Rome.

Exactly this. I'm generally up for a challenge, but this one was just too frustrating on my first go. I might try again whenever base G&K starts to get old to me.
 
At least this scenario felt like a scenario..Where you start with units and cities

The into the renaissance just felt like a medieval start normal game

Same goes for The smokey sky one except it has new techs..
I don't know about that.

For these scenarios where you start with so many cities, micromanaging them all at the beginning is a real PAIN.
 
I'm a bit sick of perpetual war scenarios, 1066, Mongol Horde, Samurai Invasion, and now this one.
How about a future scenario which is all about diplomacy (though people routinely malign AI diplomacy in Civ V).

No war is allowed - you aren't able to DoW each other.
 
Trying Western Rome on deity. It may be possible to get a golden age before the dark age hits. Can't figure out why the Vandals have units place to swarm Byzantium and not Carthage but since I got my ands full as it is ...
 
Rise of Rome could be more interessting! Dido and the celts could be in it and it would give more sense.
 
At least this scenario felt like a scenario..Where you start with units and cities

The into the renaissance just felt like a medieval start normal game

Same goes for The smokey sky one except it has new techs..

I agree with this completely. Into the Renaissance could have been a much better scenario if the players had predefined starting empires. Fall of Rome is much better balanced (except for Rome maybe...but then what is the name of the scenario again?) and has a more developed character to it.
 
Rise of Rome could be more interessting! Dido and the celts could be in it and it would give more sense.
The celts are in but Carthage is out because it was conquered.
 
I like it overall, but it suffers from the typical multi-faction-scenario-syndrome, as in the factions are heavily unbalanced.

I've just started playing Civ 5 about 2 weeks ago, so I currently play on Prince level, and here are my observations:

Winning as the Goths is way to easy, Byzanz doesn't even put up a decent fight until you lay siege on Konstantinopel - and even then only barely.

Winning as the Celts is nigh on impossible. I conquered the entirety of France/Spain but the damn Francs and all of West Rome go completely try hard against you from turn 1 + you can't lose fights to West Rome or they will convert your units.

I even took Trier from the Francs and lost it again, because he spawn rediulous amounts of units every odd turn or so - I still lost btw despite taking Trier back and holding all of France and Spain . . .

Haven't really played for the other factions yet, but I see a tendency of the AI using the Francs + their rediculous respawn as a wildcard to throw at the player.

The Francs never seem to attack the AI, regardless if you're playing the Celts, the Goths or West Rome, the Francs and their annoying respawns ONLY charge in your direction.
 
actually, the Franks were quite tame in my game as Western Rome. Finished on King now, only lost Gesoriacum and Carnuntum, conquered the Vandals, the last turns were a pain in the ass though. Bowmen were barely doing any damage anymore, to win trireme battles I need to outmatch the Celts 4:1, that kinda crap. I think Persia actually has the best odds, being in the corner, can be a good steamroller.

I agree on the scenario remarks. I would like to see some more peaceful scenario's and more historically realistic and not the stupid advanced start thing. Something like the 1000 ad scenario from Civ 4 for instance.
 
actually, the Franks were quite tame in my game as Western Rome. Finished on King now, only lost Gesoriacum and Carnuntum, conquered the Vandals, the last turns were a pain in the ass though. Bowmen were barely doing any damage anymore, to win trireme battles I need to outmatch the Celts 4:1, that kinda crap. I think Persia actually has the best odds, being in the corner, can be a good steamroller.

I agree on the scenario remarks. I would like to see some more peaceful scenario's and more historically realistic and not the stupid advanced start thing. Something like the 1000 ad scenario from Civ 4 for instance.
 
I would love it if the Rise of Rome scenario from Civilization III: Conquest was adapted for G&K.
 
Back
Top Bottom