RFC Classical World

[CrossRFC]

Mauryans is one of the few rare civs where you have to build settlers. With most civs, expansion is almost completely fueled by conquest. I wouldn't mind either way, though.

 

[Rod]

I did the Mauryans successfully on Emperor. Nevertheless it was a strange experience. The first part was ridiculously hard - less because of the the extend of territories to conquer (in the end I even have had to declare war on both Bactrians and Seleucids just in order to gain Arachosia .. which I instantly gifted back one year after 200 BC) but because of the Deccan Raiders. I seriously stationed War Elephants along the East Coast in order to manage these guys who seem to pop up like every 5 turns (please correct me if I am wrong, but the spawning rate of Deccan Raiders seriously seemed to be way higher than usual).

In comparison to the first target the second and third target are very easy and in fact I managed both in 114 BC, which most probably was not the earliest possible victory.

Funny thing is that after you finally got your Mauryan empire up and growing strong it is already all over which leaves you kind of .. unsatisfied

 

[DC123456789]

Well, you can't possibly expect Emperor to be balanced while Monarch still needs a lot of work. But yeah, it should have quite a few more barbarians.

 

[Rod]

Mauryans is one of the few rare civs where you have to build settlers. With most civs, expansion is almost completely fueled by conquest. I wouldn't mind either way, though.

Roman Empire is one as well at least for Mauretania, Illyria (Dalmatia) and Lusitania .. maybe Britannia as well - i haven't checked it out yet.

However Illyria (Dalmatia) was definitively settled by independent tribes during the Roman Age - some of them even already quite civilized traders if I remember correctly - and was one of the Republic's earliest conquests. So I would recommend one or two independent cities in Illyria.

Moreover I didn't see any Elephants in Carthage - I mean in reality of course the Carthaginians were importing them instead of breeding them .. but in the game you can hardly import Elephants except from India and besides the fact that its quite impossible to even make contact or trade with India early in the game the famous Carthaginian War Elephants were African ones.

 

[Rod]

iirc you need 2 settlers for the Mauryan victory, 1 for Deccan and 1 for Anga. yes we could have indy Pratishthana and Tamralipti spawn instead. what do others think?

barbarians are part of the challenge in all these mods. you don't need to use elephants. I have always guarded my improvements in India with axemen and archers and that has been fine.

At least Pratishthana makes a lot of sense as the Satavahanas were vassals of the Mauryans before they declared independence. This suggest that there was an independent Kingdom in Pratishthana.

Regarding Annam (part of Bangala and the most Eastern part of Asokas realm) . Most probably in those days there was nothing like a city existing in Annam, but rather small Barbarian settlements from where the Raiders came to the Ganges valley. So in order to gain control of the area it does make sense that the Mauryans themselves founded an administrative center in this region.

 

[DC123456789]

There are elephants in Mauretania just south of Rusadir, but they disappear sometime during the game.

 

[CrossRFC]

You can get Elephants by settling on the border between Numidia and Mauretania.

Edit: never mind

 

[Rod]

fair,

and I already thought I had spotted them but then later couldn't find them again

 

[Rod]

Well, you can't possibly expect Emperor to be balanced while Monarch still needs a lot of work. But yeah, it should have quite a few more barbarians.

It seems to be so much more Barbarians than at the Roman borders.

I also played the Roman Empire on Emperor and I simply have had less trouble with Barbarians.
Nevertheless maybe I am actually fooling myself as I was already aware of the hotspots while playing Romans so as the Mauryans I got surprised.

Besides while playing Romans you look forward to every Barbarian as you need the slaves, but as Mauryans it is different (if you stick with Caste System as I foolishly did for style reasons)

 

[Mr.Kwast]

My game have a weird error, I Failed in my celtic first UHV when i conquest Rome in 272BC!! Sadly!

 

[Oma]

Hi All

I cannot load this mod and get the following

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: Civ4BeyondSword.exe
Application Version: 3.1.3.1
Application Timestamp: 48317e8a
Fault Module Name: CvGameCoreDLL.dll
Fault Module Version: 0.0.0.0
Fault Module Timestamp: 52c20abb
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 0005fdc0
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.4
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: 8485
Additional Information 2: 84853502223d8164a31468861a7c3d71
Additional Information 3: 096e
Additional Information 4: 096e1bd0f1dc1c0a0e6c1d8ecc5c1361

Any ideas how I messed this up? I have no issues with the other RFC mods

 

[srpt]

sorry I have never seen anything like that before. maybe try re-downloading?

 

[DC123456789]

It seems to be so much more Barbarians than at the Roman borders.

I also played the Roman Empire on Emperor and I simply have had less trouble with Barbarians.
Nevertheless maybe I am actually fooling myself as I was already aware of the hotspots while playing Romans so as the Mauryans I got surprised.

Besides while playing Romans you look forward to every Barbarian as you need the slaves, but as Mauryans it is different (if you stick with Caste System as I foolishly did for style reasons)

I personally think that the Romans need more barbarians in the 4th and 5th centuries.

 

[Rod]

I personally think that the Romans need more barbarians in the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Roman Empire scenario finishes in 125 AD

 

[Rod]

320 BC scenario:
the map of Britannia contains no rivers whatsoever. No Thames, just plain grassland everywhere.

 

[CrossRFC]

The Roman Empire scenario finishes in 125 AD

Yes, but AI Rome continues to exist past this date and is the most important civ in the area, even in relation to other players. Having it collapse appropriately is rather important.

 

[Rod]

Yes, but AI Rome continues to exist past this date and is the most important civ in the area, even in relation to other players. Having it collapse appropriately is rather important.

I thought that the spawn of Byzantines, Visigoths, Osthrogoths, Vandals, Franks and later even Lombards would make sure to collapse Rome well before 500 AD, don't they ?

I played Franks twice based on the 220 scenario and Rome was usually long gone .. even though the city itself was independent at times.

 

[CrossRFC]

Keep in mind that barbarians will affect the Byzantines, and affects how the game progresses as a civ that plays along with Rome, like the Sassanids. Also what cities the barbarians take will affect games for the visigoths, ostrogoths, etc. The point is not necessarily to collapse Rome by 500 AD, just weaken it, which is why barbarian invasions is more interesting than time-based stability loss.

 

[srpt]

rev 107

Mauryan edict goal moved to 200BC, sainthood goal moved to 100BC

Lake Baikal and Irtysh river finally added to the 550AD map

the Chalukyans UU now replaces the Armored Elephant (and they can actually build it now) and starts with blitz

Srivijayan UU is a War Galley available with Sailing with 4 cargo space and starts with sentry.

Chalukyan and Srivijayan starting techs adjusted

the Huns are working a bit better now

the Gokturks UU no longer requires iron

settler maps implemented for the nomad civs

the Celts respawn as the Saxons in 490ish, just before the Franks

a few more resources spawn on the steppes

 

[DC123456789]

Where do the Saxons respawn?

Also, what do you think about spawning an independent Londinium at around 0 AD to represent the Brythonic tribes? It might also make Rome somewhat more likely to conquer Britannia (since the AI loves conquering independent cities).