Resource icon
Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire
- Thread starter pinktilapia
- Start date
captain beaver
Civ 3 addict
Just gave a quick look at version 1.2 and sorry but I think there are some problems with it.
First of all, there are some units who have either no graphic in the .biq file while they have strange graphic in the game (such as dinos, aircraft and others).
Second, you generally increased almost every AI unit offense/defense value. I'm not sure this is a smart choice as it increases quite a lot the difficulty of the game. Don't base yourself too much on the performance of our SG. We have a lot of experienced good players there and we are playing the easy version, which explains why we are having so many sucesses. First time players won't be as good as us and will have a hard time simply fighting off Cartage.
First of all, there are some units who have either no graphic in the .biq file while they have strange graphic in the game (such as dinos, aircraft and others).
Second, you generally increased almost every AI unit offense/defense value. I'm not sure this is a smart choice as it increases quite a lot the difficulty of the game. Don't base yourself too much on the performance of our SG. We have a lot of experienced good players there and we are playing the easy version, which explains why we are having so many sucesses. First time players won't be as good as us and will have a hard time simply fighting off Cartage.
primordial stew
Emperor
Yeah, for example how are we supposed to be able to handle the miles falcatus? 9-5-2 HN, so they will be raiding the Dacian border, but velites and preasidiums are no match at all, so we need to keep 2-3 supported troops in this area. And with a cost of 8gpt now, along with increased corruption, but 45 free units, it's too much of a burden. If the auxilaries could handle them, well ok, but they can't.
The 8-5-0 barb garrisons are a big step up as well. The armies will still probobly win, but will be recovering for a few turns afterward for sure. The 7A ballista still can't take out defenses quickly. They are pretty effective vs everthing else, just not fortifications!
Money is a major problem too. With the increased corruption, and increase research costs, I've been seeing 70% regularly vs 40-50% in previous versions. Rome needs money in order to:
1. maintain the timeline. I'm certainly behind the 12 turns each, but that can be recovered from by researching Poetry while Dictator is being built.
2. rush key buildings, eg 2 navalis so that Portus Ostae can be built soon, it is such a boom to the economy!
In 201BC I decided that Tolosa had to be captured immediately in order to get it's gold. This will help offset Praetor (20gpt), which has to be built earlier than before in order to reduce corruption. Even in my small empire there is >50% corruption in Agrigentum.
The supported army has been 45-47 units, so up to 16pgt. Drama Theory required 90% research, which is -47gpt, so I had to settle for 80% @ -20gpt for 13 turns.
No sign of Hannibal yet, but the 2nd Punic was hasn't begun.
In general loses have been high so far. Really so long as the 4D units aren't in the open they are enough for the legions, so all these 5D units are causing more loses than earlier versions. Even Epirus killed something like 3 velites, 3 miles socius, and 2 legions.
I was going to give up and switch to easy, but then Bovanium culture flipped ~250BC
I took as a sign from the various gods that the game should continue!
It's 190BC. The 2 closest Gallic cites have been taken for economic reasons. I'm pondering disbanding 1/2 of the navy in order to grown the army and push a land campaign through Hispania. Thier 2 northmost cities would be taken, and then Sagantum.. and finally get the 2nd Punic war going ~175BC.. ughh.
I do like the new graphics, sounds, and map changes. I just don't see how Rome can be successful with all the increased burdens. The 25% production bonus from the catasta isn't enough!
The 8-5-0 barb garrisons are a big step up as well. The armies will still probobly win, but will be recovering for a few turns afterward for sure. The 7A ballista still can't take out defenses quickly. They are pretty effective vs everthing else, just not fortifications!
Money is a major problem too. With the increased corruption, and increase research costs, I've been seeing 70% regularly vs 40-50% in previous versions. Rome needs money in order to:
1. maintain the timeline. I'm certainly behind the 12 turns each, but that can be recovered from by researching Poetry while Dictator is being built.
2. rush key buildings, eg 2 navalis so that Portus Ostae can be built soon, it is such a boom to the economy!
In 201BC I decided that Tolosa had to be captured immediately in order to get it's gold. This will help offset Praetor (20gpt), which has to be built earlier than before in order to reduce corruption. Even in my small empire there is >50% corruption in Agrigentum.
The supported army has been 45-47 units, so up to 16pgt. Drama Theory required 90% research, which is -47gpt, so I had to settle for 80% @ -20gpt for 13 turns.
No sign of Hannibal yet, but the 2nd Punic was hasn't begun.
In general loses have been high so far. Really so long as the 4D units aren't in the open they are enough for the legions, so all these 5D units are causing more loses than earlier versions. Even Epirus killed something like 3 velites, 3 miles socius, and 2 legions.
I was going to give up and switch to easy, but then Bovanium culture flipped ~250BC
I took as a sign from the various gods that the game should continue! It's 190BC. The 2 closest Gallic cites have been taken for economic reasons. I'm pondering disbanding 1/2 of the navy in order to grown the army and push a land campaign through Hispania. Thier 2 northmost cities would be taken, and then Sagantum.. and finally get the 2nd Punic war going ~175BC.. ughh.
I do like the new graphics, sounds, and map changes. I just don't see how Rome can be successful with all the increased burdens. The 25% production bonus from the catasta isn't enough!
primordial stew
Emperor
I took over Hannibal's cottage in 159BC, but still no sign of him. Taking so long before the 2nd Punic war is a no-win situation.. they still have offensive bombardment ships, so wiped out my western fleet in port after waves, and waves.. And all those spawned land units simply overwhelmed my troops in Hispania. The nastiest suprise was when they took Toroco from the sea, and landed Numidians. They fanned out and killed all my velites in the area taking 1 more city. Scipio re-took Toroco, but lost 9/12 points while defeating a single Lybian. Next turn more Lybians attacked from the sea and took the town again. Ok, I'm beat, back to easy!!
blitzkrieg80
ðrymes ðēoden
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 707
I so told you guys it was a mistake to make so many changes... Without doing it step by step, all of the balance is lost... A LOT MORE TESTING LIES IN THE FUTURE... I'm NOT talking to you Pink, but to everyone who thought so many things needed change... and now, poor Pink gets blamed for being too open minded 
Gaias
Earthman
True. We are definitely fanatical when it comes to game balance and realism. But that can be a good thing... sometimes. 
The good news here is that this is the last patch and a few minor tweaks to unit stats and graphics is all that is needed. Its one thing to impliment new features without testing (which it what we are here for) and another to expect all these changes to be effective on the first run. Though there are a few inconsistancies now (graphics mostly), I think it would be alot easier now to balance now that all major updates are done. But then again tweaking and refining can continue until the cows come home.
The good news here is that this is the last patch and a few minor tweaks to unit stats and graphics is all that is needed. Its one thing to impliment new features without testing (which it what we are here for) and another to expect all these changes to be effective on the first run. Though there are a few inconsistancies now (graphics mostly), I think it would be alot easier now to balance now that all major updates are done. But then again tweaking and refining can continue until the cows come home.
the_Monarch
annointed and crowned
Hello to you all, my raging companions . I think we should appreciate the effort Pink put into this more. True, some changes are unexpected and giving too much combat bonus to the early barbs only makes for an unhistorical delay in conquest, which is fatal in RFRE, and does not reflect the squalor made from the corruption that ended the empire in the first place.
But these are minor things. The idea is that Rome is too powerful when she reaches her largest, the challenge was great enough before the Antonines as it was. And even in our succesion game with the earlier rules and on easy we are not that far ahead in money or research and the only headstart we have in conquest is Dacia.
So as i see it we should concentrate on not allowing the Antonines through Severans to amass too much money as peace will yield so much more profit. The increase in unit costs for them is most welcome, IMO. I've never had more than 5000 gold before Augustus or even Trajan for that matter but the tresury boomed enourmously after tha. So the Golden Age and Empire should be hampered a bit, not the poor republic with so many foes.
Remember the Teutoburg forest, the Markomani revolt, the fierce resistance in Dacia, Gallia and Britannia under Boudicca and Calgacus and not the swift wars in Greece. True I complained about the hoplites beeing lame, Pink, but I ment an increase in their att, not def. For example a Macedonian phalanx is now much better than a legion which is absurd. The earlier stats for this were probably more accurate.
On the graphics level needing work on, the only thing the units miss is a proper units32.pcx which is not that hard to make. Unfortunatelly I don't have the time to even think of something like this until 2 or 3 weeks from now so unless anybody else takes pity by then, I'll try and do it myself.
. I think we should appreciate the effort Pink put into this more. True, some changes are unexpected and giving too much combat bonus to the early barbs only makes for an unhistorical delay in conquest, which is fatal in RFRE, and does not reflect the squalor made from the corruption that ended the empire in the first place.But these are minor things. The idea is that Rome is too powerful when she reaches her largest, the challenge was great enough before the Antonines as it was. And even in our succesion game with the earlier rules and on easy we are not that far ahead in money or research and the only headstart we have in conquest is Dacia.
So as i see it we should concentrate on not allowing the Antonines through Severans to amass too much money as peace will yield so much more profit. The increase in unit costs for them is most welcome, IMO. I've never had more than 5000 gold before Augustus or even Trajan for that matter but the tresury boomed enourmously after tha. So the Golden Age and Empire should be hampered a bit, not the poor republic with so many foes.
Remember the Teutoburg forest, the Markomani revolt, the fierce resistance in Dacia, Gallia and Britannia under Boudicca and Calgacus and not the swift wars in Greece. True I complained about the hoplites beeing lame, Pink, but I ment an increase in their att, not def
. For example a Macedonian phalanx is now much better than a legion which is absurd. The earlier stats for this were probably more accurate.On the graphics level needing work on, the only thing the units miss is a proper units32.pcx which is not that hard to make. Unfortunatelly I don't have the time to even think of something like this until 2 or 3 weeks from now so unless anybody else takes pity by then, I'll try and do it myself.
Gaias
Earthman
Well I am in the process of creating major modifications to RFRE as of now. Their are certain features and tech directions that I never agreed with, but my ideas would mean a total reworking of the BIC (which I am in the process of doing).
I can make a 'fixed' units_32.pcx in the next few days as I am working on the graphics of my version of RFRE. I should be able to post it this weekend, if not sooner.
P.S. I have also applied to an art school for Game Art & Design, and have an interview that is going to 'make or break' me getting into this school. Wish me luck!
I can make a 'fixed' units_32.pcx in the next few days as I am working on the graphics of my version of RFRE. I should be able to post it this weekend, if not sooner.
P.S. I have also applied to an art school for Game Art & Design, and have an interview that is going to 'make or break' me getting into this school. Wish me luck!
Again, i'd like to help with graphics but I would need specific details of what needs doing. I honestly don't have time to search the grphx folder for things to do as I'm actually very busy on various civ projects at the moment, between W40K, building requests and an African diplo interface.
If you can think of anything, please let me know.
P.S. Good luck with that, Gaias!
If you can think of anything, please let me know.
P.S. Good luck with that, Gaias!
blitzkrieg80
ðrymes ðēoden
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 707
It's all good... I'm just a pessimist (aka REALIST?!)
I really DO want people to criticize (in a good way, which you are!) because that is how progress is made... if we just kissed ass all the time, we'd be nowhere... so I apologize if I seemed like I was complaining...
WE MUST TEST, is all... and please COMPLAIN! that would be something that should be considered if not addressed...
* - I really DON'T think the "paratrooping" ability is something the AI uses AT ALL... Possibly the problem with Hannibal... I haven't tested this patch, so I could be talking out my ass, but in almost EVERY CIV GAME I've played mod or no mod... the AI wasn't programmed (Lazy programmers) to take advantage of that, like the naval invasion thing, like they should.... The pirates BARELY did their pirate invasion thing and they were suppose to be doing it the whole time, and I know some of you disagree with this, but consider... how OFTEN do you REALLY see the pirates do their thing?
I really DO want people to criticize (in a good way, which you are!) because that is how progress is made... if we just kissed ass all the time, we'd be nowhere... so I apologize if I seemed like I was complaining...
WE MUST TEST, is all... and please COMPLAIN! that would be something that should be considered if not addressed...
* - I really DON'T think the "paratrooping" ability is something the AI uses AT ALL... Possibly the problem with Hannibal... I haven't tested this patch, so I could be talking out my ass, but in almost EVERY CIV GAME I've played mod or no mod... the AI wasn't programmed (Lazy programmers) to take advantage of that, like the naval invasion thing, like they should.... The pirates BARELY did their pirate invasion thing and they were suppose to be doing it the whole time, and I know some of you disagree with this, but consider... how OFTEN do you REALLY see the pirates do their thing?
primordial stew
Emperor
How has everyone else's game gone? I used to be good enough to play hard, but then the game got harder, but I haven't gotten any better 
@monarch - Yes, minor tweaks. The graphics do look really good, and there is a great deal of flavor, so just some unit stat ballancing is all it should take.
@blitz - I've seen the AI paradrop the Pirates many times. Maybe Hannibal is just too big :0 He probobly went off to attack some HN unit in Gaul. At one point I think we wanted to build an island for him so he could only land in Italy. Lets see if anyone else gets him.
I really don't think it's possible to do a good job with Hannibal in Italy in civ3, or even civ4. He really shouldn't be much of a threat as far as attacking cities. He didn't have any seige equipment. Carthage didn't supply him much, he had to forage and raise his own troops. Sure, he killed plenty of legions, but in the end he simply left Italy. And yet we are to defeat him with his amazing stats, and in a game with a tight timeline where any delays only make the next enemy even stronger? I just don't see how he can possibly work well.
Also, Hannibal should represent a good chunk of Carthage's army at the time, so they shouldn't be getting so many of those other units..
@monarch - Yes, minor tweaks. The graphics do look really good, and there is a great deal of flavor, so just some unit stat ballancing is all it should take.
@blitz - I've seen the AI paradrop the Pirates many times. Maybe Hannibal is just too big :0 He probobly went off to attack some HN unit in Gaul. At one point I think we wanted to build an island for him so he could only land in Italy. Lets see if anyone else gets him.
I really don't think it's possible to do a good job with Hannibal in Italy in civ3, or even civ4. He really shouldn't be much of a threat as far as attacking cities. He didn't have any seige equipment. Carthage didn't supply him much, he had to forage and raise his own troops. Sure, he killed plenty of legions, but in the end he simply left Italy. And yet we are to defeat him with his amazing stats, and in a game with a tight timeline where any delays only make the next enemy even stronger? I just don't see how he can possibly work well.
Also, Hannibal should represent a good chunk of Carthage's army at the time, so they shouldn't be getting so many of those other units..
blitzkrieg80
ðrymes ðēoden
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 707
You mention an island for Hannibal... Malta maybe?!
primordial stew
Emperor
Just thrown an island down. There's plenty of tiles where the ships can't go.
If that is the problem.
If that is the problem.
the_Monarch
annointed and crowned
Good luck, Gaias! So you can take over Pink's position as lead designer if you feel up to it 
. We'll all put our opinions down and see what we can come up with. You should post your tweaks before you post the biq.
@blitz: I think I'm pretty objective when I say Pink deserves some credit. True he overdid it a bit with the 5 def units. There shouldn't be any IMO. The legion SHOULD rule. I just say make them sligthly more expensive though.
An island for Hannibal? 2 major no-nos: what if he doesn't paradrop? How are you suppose to take over the island, just the Scipii? We'd have Carthage on a little island.Which reminds me: Pink agreed but forgot to make the army generating wonders earlier, we should have at least one Scipio by Hannibal and one Caesar by 50 BC.
Hannibal's stats are great indeed but think about the ballista's. And his def was lowered, I believe. Maibe we can increase his def but lower the hp so as he takes more damage attacking and not become unstopable but is no easy pray for Ballistae. And he did ocupy most of Southern Italy for quite a few years. Except for Rome, he should be fierce. We must also make sure he doesn't land in Corsica too...Just a thought.
Edit: Gaias, here's the unit32.pcx from Wars of the Med. You can find most units here.
. We'll all put our opinions down and see what we can come up with. You should post your tweaks before you post the biq.@blitz: I think I'm pretty objective when I say Pink deserves some credit. True he overdid it a bit with the 5 def units. There shouldn't be any IMO. The legion SHOULD rule. I just say make them sligthly more expensive though.
An island for Hannibal? 2 major no-nos: what if he doesn't paradrop? How are you suppose to take over the island, just the Scipii? We'd have Carthage on a little island.Which reminds me: Pink agreed but forgot to make the army generating wonders earlier, we should have at least one Scipio by Hannibal and one Caesar by 50 BC.
Hannibal's stats are great indeed but think about the ballista's. And his def was lowered, I believe. Maibe we can increase his def but lower the hp so as he takes more damage attacking and not become unstopable but is no easy pray for Ballistae. And he did ocupy most of Southern Italy for quite a few years. Except for Rome, he should be fierce. We must also make sure he doesn't land in Corsica too...Just a thought.
Edit: Gaias, here's the unit32.pcx from Wars of the Med. You can find most units here.
captain beaver
Civ 3 addict
@The monarch
The thing with Hannibal is that it simply can't work! How are we supposed to lose all of Soutern Italia for 10 turns (10 years) and then take it back in the same amount of time while all of the army is either in Sicilia or Spain? In RFRE or in civ 3 in general, there is very little city trading continuously in times of war. Either you conquer it, or you lose it for a long time.
Also, the way AI work is that it will try to conquer the nearest cities. Hannibal won't go in Soutern Italy. He'll probably take Medionalum, wait until the city builds a def unit, and then go out to take either Ravenna or Genoa. Since he is alone he will be fortified quite a long time in the city he conquers because the AI never leaves a city undefended.
Another problem with trying to make Hannibal conquer our core cities is that when he takes the city, he destroys roughly half of the improvements and when we come back, we destroy the other half. So we will have nice little size 1 cities without any improvement serving as base of operations to take out Cartage. Which also raises the issue of money. IF, that's a big if, Hannibal actually manages to sneak pass all of northern Italia and conquers soutern Italia, can Rome still support an army big enough to take on Africa, Spain and Hasdrubal (who spawns in Spain and is the equivalent to Hannibal)? Personnally, I don't think so.
This is just to highlight the major problems of hannibal in the Alps. Earlier versions, althought unhistorical, were actually the best we can do with the civ 3 engine. Either Hannibal should be preplaced from the start in Spain and invade Northern Italia during the first Punic war (as it was during the beta), or it should spawn at around 225BC in Spain and take on the roman armies there where the loss of Tarraco or Valentia Edetanorum means virtually nothing.
The thing with Hannibal is that it simply can't work! How are we supposed to lose all of Soutern Italia for 10 turns (10 years) and then take it back in the same amount of time while all of the army is either in Sicilia or Spain? In RFRE or in civ 3 in general, there is very little city trading continuously in times of war. Either you conquer it, or you lose it for a long time.
Also, the way AI work is that it will try to conquer the nearest cities. Hannibal won't go in Soutern Italy. He'll probably take Medionalum, wait until the city builds a def unit, and then go out to take either Ravenna or Genoa. Since he is alone he will be fortified quite a long time in the city he conquers because the AI never leaves a city undefended.
Another problem with trying to make Hannibal conquer our core cities is that when he takes the city, he destroys roughly half of the improvements and when we come back, we destroy the other half. So we will have nice little size 1 cities without any improvement serving as base of operations to take out Cartage. Which also raises the issue of money. IF, that's a big if, Hannibal actually manages to sneak pass all of northern Italia and conquers soutern Italia, can Rome still support an army big enough to take on Africa, Spain and Hasdrubal (who spawns in Spain and is the equivalent to Hannibal)? Personnally, I don't think so.
This is just to highlight the major problems of hannibal in the Alps. Earlier versions, althought unhistorical, were actually the best we can do with the civ 3 engine. Either Hannibal should be preplaced from the start in Spain and invade Northern Italia during the first Punic war (as it was during the beta), or it should spawn at around 225BC in Spain and take on the roman armies there where the loss of Tarraco or Valentia Edetanorum means virtually nothing.
the_Monarch
annointed and crowned
@ Captain Beaver: these are all good points. However him spawning in Carthago Nova would mean he'll never get to cross the Alps. Once we make sure he crosses the Alps. there should be some mayhem. As you sad, him beeing alone won't mean the loss of Italy but rather a harassement and a challenge.
So I say we drop the paradrop for it's useless. And we make the Spanish Carthaginian cities easier to conquer by lowering the amount of units. Once Hannibal is dead he should pave the way for victory. Maibe even increase his shield cost dramatically so when he is defeated Carthage would give up one or two cities immediatelly
So I say we drop the paradrop for it's useless. And we make the Spanish Carthaginian cities easier to conquer by lowering the amount of units. Once Hannibal is dead he should pave the way for victory. Maibe even increase his shield cost dramatically so when he is defeated Carthage would give up one or two cities immediatelly
Gaias
Earthman
Here is the 'fixed' unit_32 files and the corresponding bics along with it. Let me know if there is any missing, but I do believe I have got them all.
Removed as it is unnecessary.
Removed as it is unnecessary.
pinktilapia
Homeless
Argh- I was hoping satisfaction would be prevalent.
Before anyone starts changing the BIQs (is it already too late), please download the latest BIQs (minor changes, a new feature that will empoverish the west by the 3rd century, and sorry not accomodating your feedback) together with the missing updated file (unit32.pcx).
From there, we can discuss the minor tweaks needed. These will be only tweaks (understand changes of values in the BIQs, nothing else, nothing more).
I am updating the front post links now.
@Goethe - RFRE in German? Sure I would keep the latin names though, it will make it easier for you, too.
Before anyone starts changing the BIQs (is it already too late), please download the latest BIQs (minor changes, a new feature that will empoverish the west by the 3rd century, and sorry not accomodating your feedback) together with the missing updated file (unit32.pcx).
From there, we can discuss the minor tweaks needed. These will be only tweaks (understand changes of values in the BIQs, nothing else, nothing more).
I am updating the front post links now.
@Goethe - RFRE in German? Sure
I would keep the latin names though, it will make it easier for you, too.
pinktilapia
Homeless
Hi Gaias, we got our post at the same time it seems
Thanks for fixing the patch gap - I guess (hope) our pcx are the same!
Thanks for fixing the patch gap - I guess (hope) our pcx are the same!
Gaias
Earthman
ARGH!!! How dare you steal my glory!!!
Well I am fairly sure our unit_32.pcx isn't going to match as I replaced most of the modern unit icons. Oh well... Its not like I needed those few ours of my life anyways...
Anyways I will remove my patch as it seems unneccessary now that you are back with a fix.
I haven't actually had time to play this time around as I been busy applying for school and trying to find money to fund it.
Well I am fairly sure our unit_32.pcx isn't going to match as I replaced most of the modern unit icons. Oh well... Its not like I needed those few ours of my life anyways...
Anyways I will remove my patch as it seems unneccessary now that you are back with a fix.
I haven't actually had time to play this time around as I been busy applying for school and trying to find money to fund it.
Similar threads
