Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

[jlvfr]

Wow, so many posts on a Monday !? Garfields you are not...

Well... let's see...

Work... or Civ3... work... or Civ3...

 

[König Markus]

@Konig Marcus
And with posts like those above made by mscaevola, the whole thread must be close to a book, sizewise!

Yes, absolutely! I don't know when I shall read all these good and interesting posts!

@all
Well, done.

 

[mscaevola]

Pinktilapia, thank you for your informative and measured answers, they helped a lot. I am really amazed how patient you are, still spending time and calmly responding to novices like me and their silly questions.

I now understand the difficulty of tweaking Hannibal, and understand that a lot of work went into it, so it will stay the same. Maybe just increasing strenght or HP, possibly in the "hard" mode. As I mentioned, I have no clue about editors and mod building, I just play it as it is.

On the song, it did sound like he says "Thailand" in one verse, that was my guess... I checked wikipedia, interesting band.

BTW, I wrote such a lengthy post attempting to help new players (if there are still any) with a tutorial, and possibly those who are still developing patches. If I had known all of this when I first started...

This is really a "game" that would probably be better in teaching kids Roman history than any other book or tool. I hope that history teachers and even college profs are paying attention out there. I understand the dilemma between trying to recreate history (rise and then fall and a half-way resurrection), but as pointed out at the forum, it is hard to do that with civ3 constraints. In the future patch developed by Christophoros that you mention, I like the idea of making the barbarians more efficient, so that there is a real threat of a fall (triple axis Ger/Goth/Scyth sounds somewhat scary to me), but there should be balance, because one does want to win in the end. I think that the main problem is with the enslavement. When the fall starts, and barbarians start winning, all new enslaved units accelerate the fall and a vicious circle begins. It is OK to have numerous monster barbarian units, but the enslavement fosters a black&white situation - either one wins easily (with a lot of effort, though!) without even a scratch on the limes, or one is totaly lost.

 

[mscaevola]

I promise this is it from me for now, unless someone has a question.

 

[pinktilapia]

Maybe you have a very good point there, if Rome start falling, no need to further accelerate her decline. I like what you suggest: what we need is a stronger (not more units, maybe more HP and attack) triple alliance of barbarians, but no more enslavement for their hordes to counterbalance this.

 

[mscaevola]

Maybe you have a very good point there, if Rome start falling, no need to further accelerate her decline. I like what you suggest: what we need is a stronger (not more units, maybe more HP and attack) triple alliance of barbarians, but no more enslavement for their hordes to counterbalance this.

I'll take this as an invitation to reply. Yes, this would allow for some real battles, where one can afford losing a few pieces without making the AI stronger even with losses via enslavement. I felt obliged to apply the tactic that I described in detail (permanent war and not having the luxury to afford any defeat, just using artillery plus mop up in a repetitive way), but would much rather wage a more realistic and fun war, and not having to do it for 50-100 turns.

I think that there is a good theoretical balance in HP and attack/defense strenght between incursores and fortified legio merc. in the limes across the river, but with a 60-70% chance of incursor winning (~same strenght, but higher HP), this translates into Rome going down to 30-40% of units vs. prior turn, and barbarians to 90-110% units (assuming 50% chance of enslavement?) vs. prior turn. Cumulative effect is devastating, and Rome cannot afford to wage any traditional war.

 

[König Markus]

Cimbri, Teutones.... : I just checked the editor. They are support-free units that are spawned once by a wonder (migration helvetica, incurso cimbrines, incurso teutones) that is buildable between 100 and 50 bc. Everything is correctly done and the wonders should be built by Galla, Germania, Transalpinii, but the problem is the unit is HN. And, as we all know, the AI seldom handles HN units well. I know I have never seen any of these units in my games, except in the 100bc biq where one is spawned just north of one of your cities in Gaul. My guess is the AI builds the wonders and then sends the units out where they are killed by the numerous units of the other civs. If we want them to work correctly, we shoud make it so only Galla can build them, and only in the south, in order to give the units the best chances of wandering into Roman land. Opinions ?

Hey guys, the Kimbrii and Helvectii units must be changed!!

I've played the 100BC-scenario in which the Gaul Celts have these units in the beginning.
And now, meanwhile these units conquered almost all conquerable cities of the Germanics (without declaring war on the Germanic due to the hidden nation of these units) and destroyed and conquered Raetia.
Even for me it's hard to destroyed them without an army.

In my view it should be a small wonder (and fast to build for AI). The hidden nation function is ok, but the unit shouldn't enslave Kimbrii and Helvectii units.
Let the wonder build 2 - 4 Kimbrii units + enslavement of e.g. Praedator + hidden nation -> strong enough to cause major damage in Northern Italy and to destroy armies.


The current Hannibul version is good.

 

[Keroro]

I've been experimenting on how to get the AI to perform how I want it to, and have found that using an impossible resource is the best way. For those that are new to modding/don't understand what I mean:

You need one resource which allows uber-units (like a 98 attack unit), but which is revealed only by the 'trash-can' (unresearchable) tech. The tech can never be revealed, thus the resource will never be discovered and you will never have to face the uber-unit. BUT, the AI can see the resource even though it can never research the tech that enables it to see this resource - this is one of the cheats that the AI gets in civ 3.

The AI, despite not being able to use the resource in question, will be drawn towards the resource. I've found that the AI will defend squares that have these resources in a very determined fasion, and believe that they will beeline to take the squares too if they are at war with the civ that holds them. Hope this all makes sense.

If there ever is another patch then I suggest experimenting with this to 'encourage' Hannibal' towards Rome. This mod already has the impossible resource and trashcan techs necessary to make it work, so lets plonk one of these resources next to Rome and see what happens. It's got to be better than watching Hannibal wander around neutral Gaul.

BTW, hello everyone, old and new.

 

[Stazro]

I've been experimenting on how to get the AI to perform how I want it to, and have found that using an impossible resource is the best way. For those that are new to modding/don't understand what I mean:

You need one resource which allows uber-units (like a 98 attack unit), but which is revealed only by the 'trash-can' (unresearchable) tech. The tech can never be revealed, thus the resource will never be discovered and you will never have to face the uber-unit. BUT, the AI can see the resource even though it can never research the tech that enables it to see this resource - this is one of the cheats that the AI gets in civ 3.

The AI, despite not being able to use the resource in question, will be drawn towards the resource. I've found that the AI will defend squares that have these resources in a very determined fasion, and believe that they will beeline to take the squares too if they are at war with the civ that holds them. Hope this all makes sense.

If there ever is another patch then I suggest experimenting with this to 'encourage' Hannibal' towards Rome. This mod already has the impossible resource and trashcan techs necessary to make it work, so lets plonk one of these resources next to Rome and see what happens. It's got to be better than watching Hannibal wander around neutral Gaul.

BTW, hello everyone, old and new.

I think the hannibal unit needs Capua resource which is positioned below Capua, so the original Hannibal is drawn to Capua by the possibility to build new ones (at least in theory).

I promise this is it from me for now, unless someone has a question.

I suppose the goth cities you have have been obtained by treaty?

 

[jlvfr]

The AI, despite not being able to use the resource in question, will be drawn towards the resource.

First thing that poped to mind: zombies lurching forward, going "bwains... bwains..."

I gotta stop watching so many B movies...

 

[mscaevola]

I suppose the goth cities you have have been obtained by treaty?

Indeed. Pls see my detailed post (I attack Goth, eliminate 200+ units, then sign peace and get four cities, while letting Germans finish them off. The original idea was to get Roxoloani, eliminate the nasty 99 unit, but they would not give it up. I think that in a few turns they would have, as they already said 'close to a deal", but I got bored with destroying them).

 

[Keroro]

I think the hannibal unit needs Capua resource which is positioned below Capua, so the original Hannibal is drawn to Capua by the possibility to build new ones (at least in theory).

I'll have to have a look when I get back from work tonight, you may be right. I'm not sure that the settings on Hannibal are correct to make this work though. I'll report back.

First thing that poped to mind: zombies lurching forward, going "bwains... bwains..."

I gotta stop watching so many B movies...

So the hidden resource will be called 'Brains'. Excellent idea.

 

[Christophoros]

The Capua resource doesn't do the trick right now, as it is only linked to a not so wonderful wonder (delicti capuae). I think, for the trick to work, we would need to assign the resource to some very strong unit like the 99at immobile unit or the incursatores. Or we could create a new unit to fit that purpose.

I like Keroro's suggestion about the Cimbri, Teutones. I think it would fit the bill, as long as we make sure the wonders are not built too far north, in order to maximize the chances of the units appearing on Roman soil.

Now, for the barbarians (Goth-Germanics-Scythes), as I have been saying all along, the enslavement and the wonders that create unit spawning improvements in all cities (including newly conquered ones) make a potent combination where, as has already been mentioned, it is a all or nothing scenario : Rome normally loses everything or nothing, but there is no middle ground. The domino effect is much too strong to counter.

However the proposition of a triple axis (locked alliances between Gothia, Germania and Scythia) must be thought about a lot : Anyone who has played up to the "intelligence" tech knows one thing - a thing confirmed by other good scenarios like Age of Imperialism - the AI piles up its units in his cities because the neighbors and potential foes are doing the same thing. In my games, by 500ad, The Goths have great stacks of Incursatores in their cities, which means the Germanics also do so. If they were all allied, they would go all out with each war and, I think, the results would be... interesting.
(just to be sure of what I mean : in my games, by 500ad, if I went to war, the hoarding habit meant Rome faced a fraction of the AI's power. If we lock the 3, it is going to be quite something)

 

[Stazro]

Indeed. Pls see my detailed post (I attack Goth, eliminate 200+ units, then sign peace and get four cities, while letting Germans finish them off. The original idea was to get Roxoloani, eliminate the nasty 99 unit, but they would not give it up. I think that in a few turns they would have, as they already said 'close to a deal", but I got bored with destroying them).

I can see the benefit of it, but i consider this an exploit, which i'm not using. There is a reason for cities that can not be conquered.

The Capua resource doesn't do the trick right now, as it is only linked to a not so wonderful wonder (delicti capuae).

Does Hannibal not require Capua? I had thought so.

Perhaps one should try to face Hannibal unprepared and see if it will work then

 

[pinktilapia]

Hi Keroro, good to see the old guard still stand by . Thanks for the advice; if this could help guiding our good AI friend to do something meaningful with its HN units, it would be great!

I am not Sure how hannibal stands now, ideally, if he can be made buildable with the Rome resource, good. If Rome falls, it is gameover anyway.
EDIT: or should it be a resource not under a city for the trick to work?

 

[Keroro]

Hi Keroro, good to see the old guard still stand by . Thanks for the advice; if this could help guiding our good AI friend to do something meaningful with its HN units, it would be great!

I am not Sure how hannibal stands now, ideally, if he can be made buildable with the Rome resource, good. If Rome falls, it is gameover anyway.
EDIT: or should it be a resource not under a city for the trick to work?

Hi Pink. Just about still here, this thread just never dies. Which is a good thing.

Hannibal requires Capua at the moment (something I had forgotten about), and he's buildable to Carthage. I'd suggest making his build cost lower in pop and in shields, and removing the tech requirement for the unit - this might be stopping the AI from choosing the Capua resource as a target.

If there was a new patch then I do think that we could create a new uber-unit that would require the Roma resource, and the unit would be available to everyone (except Rome obviously); that should help channel attention towards Rome. It should lead the Cimbri, Teutones and Hannibal to Rome (Hopefully).

 

[Christophoros]

So, if I understand, we need to make the following unit :

Requires Roma resource, available to Persia, Germania, Gothia, Galla, Scythia, Transalpinii, has a 99at and is impossible to build because it requires the forbidden advance tech ?

Is that correct ?

Also, assign the Roma resource to the Cimbri, Teutones and Helveticii ?

 

[mscaevola]

I can see the benefit of it, but i consider this an exploit, which i'm not using. There is a reason for cities that can not be conquered.

Interesting, because I've never thought of this an exploit. I thought that the impassable terrain was there so that one cannot attack the cities directly, not to be prevented from getting them in negotiations. It was inconsequential, anyways, because the game was to be won shortly. It was more of a victory lap and creating a new and unusual picture.

That said, my approach is to follow the rules as set by the originator and the subsequent changes by the development community. I figure that their collective wisdom is much better than my own rules. Let me overreach and say that it relies on the legal philosophy begun with the Romans. There is a law (game rules), and it should be followed. If there is a legitimate loophole, use it, and pretty soon the legislature (RFRE community) will close it. Beware of those who create their own laws - even the most well intentioned ones can turn bad. It's actually easier with a computer - in real life there is interpretaion of the law and the need for enforcement, and here the computer simply doesn't let you commit an ilegal act. For civ3, or any other program for that matter, is limited, a clear posted list of rules by the RFRE community is an acceptable alternative, but then we wouldn't need impassable terrain to begin with, would we?

Then, there are personal morals, of course. I did question my decision to stay in Triumvirate too long, and not to build nasty wonders on time (although this can also be cured by new rules). IMHO, getting barbarian cities in exchange for peace did not fall into this category.

Finally, it's only a game, so whatever pleases a player, that's fine. It's good to hear different opinions.

 

[primordial stew]

I'm all for the fewer, but meaner invaders.

Furthermore, how about adding 2 uber-units (25A, 12D, 20HP, 2 moves but no blitz) to the Germanics for the late game rush? Unlike Hannibal charging off alone, these guys should have plenty of support around to keep them from getting bombarded to death. The idea is they can kill any Roman unit. So long as they stick to the West then it will fall. They can be named Incursio Francii. They should spawn from the west-most unconquerable city.

 

[Stazro]

Interesting, because I've never thought of this an exploit. I thought that the impassable terrain was there so that one cannot attack the cities directly, not to be prevented from getting them in negotiations. It was inconsequential, anyways, because the game was to be won shortly. It was more of a victory lap and creating a new and unusual picture.

That said, my approach is to follow the rules as set by the originator and the subsequent changes by the development community. I figure that their collective wisdom is much better than my own rules. Let me overreach and say that it relies on the legal philosophy begun with the Romans. There is a law (game rules), and it should be followed. If there is a legitimate loophole, use it, and pretty soon the legislature (RFRE community) will close it. Beware of those who create their own laws - even the most well intentioned ones can turn bad. It's actually easier with a computer - in real life there is interpretaion of the law and the need for enforcement, and here the computer simply doesn't let you commit an ilegal act. For civ3, or any other program for that matter, is limited, a clear posted list of rules by the RFRE community is an acceptable alternative, but then we wouldn't need impassable terrain to begin with, would we?

Then, there are personal morals, of course. I did question my decision to stay in Triumvirate too long, and not to build nasty wonders on time (although this can also be cured by new rules). IMHO, getting barbarian cities in exchange for peace did not fall into this category.

Finally, it's only a game, so whatever pleases a player, that's fine. It's good to hear different opinions.

I'm not trying to convince anyone on how to do something the way i would do it. I'm just expressing how i feel about this.
The impassable terrain is used, because you are not supposed to get what is behind. A houserule about "don't conquer this or that city" would not be as helpful, because you needed a list where you can look it up. We are also trying to prevent as many exploits as possible through game mechanics, for example, it is still possible to avoid a fight against Hannibal and we are discussing how to stop this. Simple houserules are just not as effective as using game mechanics, like impassable terrain.

On the other hand i'm using some things which be seen as exploits, too, like not upgrading Legio Imperatoria although i have the money to do so (there are probably more of those things, but i can't remember right now). It's just that i see the impassable terrain as a sign which tells me to stop here.

Sorry if i'm a bit confused/ing, it's quite early morning in my perspective. Hopefully you'll see what i want to express.