RBC3c - Ancient Mediterranean Mayhem - Roma

[T_McC]

So ... uhh ... any word Speaker?

I placed troops near Persia with the thought of declaring war on them on your 3rd (maybe 4th) turn. They are still fighting Scythia, and I figured if we only gave them 2 turns to counter-attack it was unlikely very much of their offensive forces could make it back from the Scythian front. We might be able to steal 4-6 cities from them, and at least guarantee we end the game with the largest pop and land area, even if we fall short of the domination criteria.

 

[Speaker]

I'm really sorry, but there is no way I'm going to be able to make time this week. Why don't you go ahead and finish it up T_McC.

 

[T_McC]

RBC3c - Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan

275 AD (0)
Well, this looks a little more familiar. We are at 23/40 while Persia is at 22/39. There are 5 turns left in the game. Only worth using money on those cites that would grow more than once in last 5 turns. Here we go a'MM-ing!

280 AD (1)
Egyptians land one NuMerc in Sicily, and approach Alexandria. Whack a whole bunch of Egyptian troops, but can't get in position to attack any Egyptian Cities.

285 AD (2)
Begin process of merging workers. Move into position to attack Pelusium.

290 AD (3)
Capture size 17 Pelusium. Seeing no way to get troops to the other large Egyptian city, I make peace for about 6 small cities, most of which I can't see. I now have empty cities all over Egypt. Merge a bunch more workers. We are now 24/42 vs Persia at 23/37.

295 AD (4)
Declare war on Persia. I think I overestimated how many troops would be defending some cities. Capture Virconium. Capture Lancken. Capture Uxellodunum. Clear out Persian units in Sicily. All without losing a single unit. Move into position to capture Wagel... and New Tyre next turn. Capture a couple of slaves and merge them into the cities. Captured 22 points of pop from Persia. with 14 more to come next turn.

IT - What can Persia come back with?

And there is no next turn. Heh.


Final stats: Us 25/44, Persia 23/36. If I would have known that I wasn't going to get any moves in 300 AD, we might have made it to 46% pop with a couple of more city captures and slave merges. Looking back at the last 30 turns, this was winnable. Persia was not making great headway against Scythia, and may have been gassed. If we had been able to get a couple of turns ahead in Egypt, and capture all of the large cities, and I had known to start attacking Persia soon enough so each army group could capture two cities, it would have been close.

Oh well, 'twas fun. Next time let's try not to let any team members fall into the vortex.

In case anyone is interested

Rome on the Verge of Defeat

P.S. The title quote is from an Italian (Roman), Galeazzo Ciano. Of course, he was a fascist ...

 

[Griselda]

We're done!

Thanks to everyone for hanging on and not letting this one fall into the vortex with our lost players. It was also great to get to know some folks a bit better.

We were so close that clearly it would have been winnable with a few small changes to any number of different areas. But, I don't think that the loss was due to an excessive amount of on the part of the team. It turned out to be quite a challenging scenario! 71 hours, wow!

The turn limit is a new concept and it will take some getting used to. As players, the traditional best approach has been to make moves that will be most effective over the long term, with the knowledge that it's very rarely a close game by 2050 if it lasts that long. Here, that simply won't work. While we knew that from the start, I think that it's hard to change the underlying mentality that went with the 540-turn game.

Another thing that I think might be helpful in a situation like this one would be a cohesive plan of action that the entire team could be a part of. I'd guess that quite a few turns that were spent moving troops from one part of the map to another (and then back sometimes!) could have been used more effectively.

As the "captain" of this team, I'm sure I could have done a better job of facilitating this discussion and decision making to help make that happen. But, that sort of discussion means pausing the game, perhaps quite frequently, while we work to reach team consensus, thus lengthening the time it takes for the game to complete a cycle of players and come back around. Even with an active discussion, I know I have a hard time reorienting myself to a game if it ends up being quite a long time between my turns. With a military late-game feel to this Conquest, perhaps 5 turns per player, or even an odd number like 7 turns per player might have been more effective.

I do hope that these thoughts aren't taken as criticism of any of you as a team or as players. I am trying to take a critical look at the game, to take something from this experience that I can use to move forward as a player. In that way, I think, defeat can never be an orphan, but victory, especially an easy victory, just might be...

Congratulations to all on a valiant effort!

-Griselda