1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

  1. Anglophile

    Anglophile Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Philly USA
    I like Christophorus´ suggestion (excuse my typing, on a Spanish keyboard and it is not clear how to do some standard English things). Much simpler than some of the suggestions but probably at least as effective. But I must also agree with jlvfr that most people play to win, not lose agonizingly slowly. A lot of effort seems to be being expended to make my enjoyment factor as low as possible. While historical accuracy is needed in this mod, one should have at least the possibility of doing much better than some of the emperors did.
     
  2. jlvfr

    jlvfr King

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    865
    Gender:
    Male
    *puffs up in pride* :D

    I think one of THE major problems of playing Rome in any mod is Italy itself. At the Civ scale, the country is simply too small and with too poor terrain (loads of mountains...) to provide support for a significant, long term, civilization. The long coastline, narrow area, and single-point land-access (from north), while simplifying defence from attacks, removes pretty much any possiblity of local armies manouvering and doing flank attacks, or even of using lost terrain as a buffer, forcing us to play pretty much with our backs to the wall: loose any terrain or city and you're in serious trouble...

    I've tried other mods and scenarios, using europe as a map, and wiping italy is allways pretty easy: just blockade the north, then move south with a single stack of units...

    PS: this is also one of the main reasons why I prefer random maps: the possibility of using totally unknown terrain! :goodjob:
     
  3. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    Worry not, friend, for I do not wish to make it unplayable. I have spent hundreds of hours playing it and I understand your concerns. What I want, however, is to try to emulate history "as much as possible". While the 3rd century will now be really harsh, what it was in reality, it will not make the game unplayable, as you will see when I soon release the list of things that will be in the patch. One example of making it harsh but player friendly is using a government form to simulate the problems, instead of a very complex 4 wonders chain that can make some turns very tedious, like when you need to manually upgrade every municipium to a civitas. That is what I don't want, and I'm trying to make sure that the patch will be hassle free.
     
  4. captain beaver

    captain beaver Civ 3 addict

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    the great forest
    For the gov (which is I admit waaaaaaay more simpler than anything else), put in the min for rate cap, worker rate, assimilation chance, draft units and military police.
    Also, you might want to make this a 2 wonder chain. Technically, as soon as you researched C3C, you go into anarchy. This takes 3-6 turns. Change to the new gov. Start building the wonder. Immediatly go back into anarchy for 3-6 turns. Now, Diocletian's reform and Absolute P is just 12-18 turns away. If your new gov is so bad, I'll just sit for 18 turn into Civil war gov. Then switch to AP as soon as I discover it. Meanwhile, the wonder gets built in Mediolanum, bad gov or not. So, by making it a chain of 2 wonders requiring your bad gov (C3C then whatever), you'll force the player for a minimum amount of turns into your bad gov.

    BTW, while looking at other govs, maybe removing forced labor for civil war and Triumvirate would make them less atractive.
     
  5. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    I will remove forced labor from those two and will make it a two wonders chain to ensure a sufficient time is spent under this bad government.
     
  6. Stazro

    Stazro Prince

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    at the shores of Rhine
  7. World Destroyer

    World Destroyer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    United States
    I'm actually really enjoying them, Stazro!
     
  8. König Markus

    König Markus Warlord

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Bavaria
    I really love CB and Christophoros for the C3C.
    We really need something with a very high corruption all over the territory and and very high financial deficits.
    A financial crisis is really not enough on its own to be threat to an experienced player. You can finish the games in good way without money!
    I my last game (which I played until 705 AD just for fun), I had an empty treasury due to a stupid mistake (not discovering Soldier emperors tech in time) for most times of the last parts of my game.
    Why can you finish a game in the current version of RFRE in a good way? - Because AI disband to over 90% "Slaves" when your treasury is empty. I never lost a Legio (in over 100 turns with 0 gold in my treasury). Random marketplaces. So, the current version of C3C doesn't harm the military strength. The only thing you can't do with an empty treasury: you can't buy units and buildings.


    That's why I support a very high corruption + financial crisis.

    I've attached a picture just for demonstration.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    The AI disbands a support free unit ?! This is utterly hopeless... We're doomed to win...

    Now, as for your comment, I agree with you : economical problems plus corruption make a great crisis, and that is why I will simulate the crisis with a government form : that way, I can precisely tune the number of lost gold, set a high corruption so that most cities produce very little and generally make life miserable for 25 turns or so.
     
  10. Anglophile

    Anglophile Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Philly USA
    Stazro, enjoying your story. I am now playing the 100 BC mod and it is much harder than the 275 BC mod (once one is past the first few brutally tough decades in the 275 version). Fewer units, less money, less income, no (essentially) servi and tougher opponents. I have no illusions that I will keep to the historical timeline - or research time likely - as bankruptcy awaits those approaches. Just as in your last update, I have noticed that the AI has an over-healthy respect for good defense. They prefer to lose all their high A/low D units in defense rather than taking large casualties on the offensive - which would almost certainly result in a breakthrough. Only thing that lets me stay close to history.

    Christophorus: I understand exactly what you are trying to do and am largely in accord with it. However, historic accuracy demands that Rome be sacked in 430 AD or so. If the mod makes that outcome inevitable, then there is no point in playing. Realism must be balanced with possibility and most of all, it must be fun. It seems to me that in the 100 BC mod, I will not need all sorts of fancy fixes to avoid me gliding through the C3C, I will be bankrupt and way behind long before then. But by all means, go ahead with the patch as it contains a lot of good ideas. Unless you're playing as the Romans.
     
  11. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    "Unless you're playing as the Romans"

    Very funny Anglophile...

    Let me state the case : That Rome be sacked in 406 is of no importance whatsoever. What we want is some kind of decline, of fall. Followed by a brief but precise return to offense. That is what we want, but even that, ultimately, depends on whether or not the AI chooses to attack. We can make life as difficult as it is for the player, but if the AI simply fortifies its incursatores in big piles deep in Germania, Rome will never fall. What we want is to make life sufficiently hard for the player so that, if the AI attacks, then holding on to the conquests will be hard, because the lack of money and pop will make it harder and harder to replace losses. Until in God's good time, Justinian comes along...

    However hard I make the C3C, it will still be a shadow of what it was in real life, when the official empire was reduced to Italy, Illyricum, Greece and Africa. We just want to up the challenge.

    Important question : Is it possible, if an improvement has a government prerequisite, to start building the improvement under that government and then go into civil war ? Will the city continue to build the improvement even though the government has been changed ?
    (I already know that the improvement will have no effect if under a different government than the one it requires, but I need to know if the construction will continue to completion.) Thanks for the answer.
     
  12. captain beaver

    captain beaver Civ 3 addict

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    the great forest
    Answer to your question: Changing governement doesn't affect what your city is building. Which is why IMO you need to make it a 2 wonder chain. Although in a certain way, staying in civil war for many turns does emulate the situation of the C3C.
     
  13. Anglophile

    Anglophile Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Philly USA
    It is actually easier to run a surplus in civil war than republic as long as one accepts a slower reserch time. Haven't delved deep into the biq (because I always end up tweaking when I do) but strongly suspect it is a unit support cost difference so even though your income has had a major drop, your support cost (or whatever) drops more. Which is good, as the mod forces more civil wars than I would undertake in a normal game of civ. So a forced really bad government is a great way to wreck the army, the economy, the treasury, etc.

    And I really, really do understand what it is you are trying to do with the C3C, which really did almost destroy the Empire. I stopped playing the first time because I had really been looking forward to the challenge of the coming crises - then looked at my game and realized that there was very little that could be done to damage the Empire that my biq tweaking had generated.

    As far as historical accuracy goes, I wish to register a complaint: the Gauls attacked ME in 66 BC and my good buddies the Persians piled in in 54 BC right after the signing of a mutually beneficial (better for them) trade deal. Thankfully I was moving the Army of the West (big name for a handful or so of legions plus hangers on) from Iberia and was transferring the Army of the East (a much more substantial group) into Asia Minor after the conquest of Thrace, at the time of each incursion. So heroic defense by Caesar and Pompey with the former now on the offensive (46 BC) and a big clash between 25 or so Hippos and an equal number of legions plus eques (who have ballista and funditors) coming next turn. Great stuff.
     
  14. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm writing the list of changes for the next patch and, going over the immobile Legio Merc and Limitanei, I suddenly realized this : since they cannot move and must be paradropped, it does mean that only cities with paradropping capacities can build them, right ? Other cities can build them, but won't be able to deploy them. That, if it is correct, drastically reduces the usefulness of those units because, then, only a very few cities will be able to build them, and all Limes cities suffer from high corruption, so what gives ?

    Any ideas on how to solve this problem ? I'm thinking of leaving them as they are now.

    Thanks,
     
  15. Anglophile

    Anglophile Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Philly USA
    Christophorus: unless you are planning to rewrite the underlying code for Civ3, there are simply things that you won't be able to do. Once you take care of the rapid movement options, road movement won't exactly allow the redeployment of units from one end of the Empire to the other in less than decades, e.g. leave 'em as they are - the putative result hardly justifies the effort involved.

    In the 100 BC scenario, it is 32 AD and I am WAY behind in everything. In my third civil war on way to Principate. After a bitter 96 year war Gaul and Iberia are conquered but the Swiss (aka Helvetii - as a graduate student a mere few decades ago at UBC, I had a paper published in Helvetica Chemica Acta (nice Latin touch), which is when I found out where the heck Helvetica was), Pannonia and Dacia remain untouched in the west/north. And unlike Julius, I haven't dipped my toes in the Channel yet. Mauretania has been conquered in Africa, as have the Seleucids and Nabateans in Asia Minor. The invasion of Galatia then BythniaArmenia has been delayed by a major Persian incursion towards Antioch and Damascus. They have been convinced to return whence they came by the appearance of a large number of legions from the Aegyptian and Galatian frontiers. Then on to Galatia. The First, and totally inconclusive, Persian War has completely thrown off the timing in Asia. However, with all the commerce goodies now largely built, the Principate, as it soon will be, has finally reached financial stability. I can fight wars, do research and still run a minor surplus. I smell a Golden Age approaching. But will it be enough to catch up?

    You really get an appreciation for just how 'good' Roma really was to achieve what they did from such a small base in such a short time (given the infrastructure/travel rates of the time). The mod is hardly a gimme now - but then I am still on the upside and all the retuning is going on in the downside. Maybe you could make the early turns a little easier in exchange for making the later ones harder? Just a thought...
     
  16. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    Here is, in complete disorder (sorry about that) a first draft of what will be in the patch. Feel free to comment, question, call me crazy...

    - change the name of the improvement “castra” to “castellum”
    - fix cimbri, teutones, helveticii to have them spawn in the south and only by Gaul and Rhaetians
    - Increase to two the number of Praesidium Parthica in Persian cities that were never historically conquered.
    - Portus Ostiae becomes obsolete with 325ad tech
    - boost dromon to 9att 8def HP 1
    - make piratae an HN unit
    - make the auxilia palatinae def 7
    - change the civilopedia expiration date for Hannibal and Hasdrubal Dux
    - Give Valentia to the Barcid civ.
    - remove enslavement from incursatores
    - make the saxons HN
    - make a Requires Roma resource, available to Persia, Germania, Gothia, Galla, Scythia, Transalpinii, 99at uber unit that will not be buildable but will attract the AI’s attention
    - change the Legio Merc and Limitanei to an immobile unit with an att of 0 and a paradrop ability.
    - Implement the government form of C3C to make the economy crash between 225 and 285. Which means the following :
    - Constitutio Antoniniana wonder requires civil war gov and Immolatio Christianum costs 0 shields puts a municipium in every city
    becomes obsolete with the C3C tech.
    - C3C wonder requires civil war and Constitutio Antoniniana
    costs 0 shields makes 20 people unhappy in every city
    becomes obsolete with Diocletian’s Reform
    - OI-S wonder requires C3C wonder and Governmental crisis government (the new type introduced in this patch)
    costs 0 shields
    Double city defense spawn 1 legio merc / turn
    becomes obsolete with 325ad tech
    - Renovatio Diocletani wonder requires Dominate government (new name of Absolute principate) and OI-S
    costs 0 shields
    Puts a Diocesis in every city
    Never obsolete

    - Rename “Absolute principate” to “Dominate”
    - Change “Christian Dominate” to make it playable.
    - Have Hagia Sophia, Imperium Belisarium and Corpus Justinius require “Christian Dominate”
    - Set the pop cost of foot comitatenses to 2 and the pop cost of cavalry comitatenses to 4.
    - The Cavalry Comitatenses upgrades to Cataphractus
    - Cataphractus get +2HP
    - Praedator Pictus’ movement increases to 4
    - Legio Antonii requires Alexandria resource
    - Increase Eques Alarius Germanicus attack to 14
    - Speculator now 14-5-HP +3
    - Cavalry Comitatenses get HP +1
    - Eques Alarius Italicus can now upgrade to Eques Celticus Alarius
    - Remove starting Municipium from Roma
    - Set Rome’s starting treasury to 50 gold
    - Create a uber unit for the Germanics, Goths and Scythians. This unit will appear starting from 375 ad and a certain quantity will be spawned to add flavor and challenge to the late game invasion.
    - Make marketplace obsolete with Roman Decadence tech.
    - Create 3 “marketplace” improvements available with Justinian. These improvements will require either Greek, Oriental or Egyptian goods.
    - Remove fine timber from England. Instead, Vallum Hadriani will now allow air trade, it will cost less and it will become obsolete in 375ad.
     
  17. captain beaver

    captain beaver Civ 3 addict

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    the great forest
    Ok

    Put 3 just to be on the safe side...

    Ok

    Not sure what's the point, but I guess ok?

    Ok

    To allow mercs to be deployed pretty much anywhere, make the triumphus allow paradrops and give the mercs a range of 10. In other words, you paradrop from city to city until you arrive where you want it to be.

    I don't quite follow you here, but if it's anything like you said it would, fine with me ;).

    Call me conservative, but I liked the old names better :D. Not that big of a worry though.

    Fine with me, but technically speaking you have no incentive to change to Christian Dominate until the tech Justinian the Great.

    We decided agaisn't that in earlier patches to avoid having Cataphractus popping out everywhere on the map. I would be opposed to that change.

    Minor but usefull. Ok.


    Reducing the starting treasury isn't all that great of an idea. The second point is fine.


    Good idea.

    I guess we only want to give a strong incentive to the player to leave Britain. Not outright tell him "These cities bring nothing to the empire, leave now or lose money!" I would favor making the Vallum expire and give it something like 40 upkeep cost.

    Seems like a nice patch. First time we had an outsider ;) do it so it brings in a new perspective on how to achieve our goals.

    I would add those suggestions:
    1) Remove the disband option from the servus. Why? First of all, when an ai civ captures a stack of slaves, it won't disband them like it sometimes do. Secondly, if you run a deficit and have no money left, the computer won't auto-disband a slave which has no unit cost.
    2) Allow small civs such as Nabatea and Transalpinii to make alliances with other civs. Although it isn't technically accurate, it would represents the barb tribes (Transalpinii) that fought for Rome in Gallia and Germania until you conquer them. It would also represent the numerous mercenaries arab, syrians or other (Nabatea) that Rome was able to recruit in the East. Not only would it ease the rise part of the game as you can create avoc by playing skillfully with alliances, but it wouldn't affect majorly the balance of the game as those civs are small and on their own, will only get conquered.
    3) To represent I would say the gradual loss of respect Rome and even Byzantium suffered later on as they levied taxes without atually being able to protect the regions that were paying them, I would decrease the amount of citizens born content by one per level (you can find that in the difficulty level tab of the editor) but change the Domus Vestalis such that it makes 1 content citizen per city until it expires say in 225AD. So you'll have a small general happiness level drop at that point but nothing too hurtfull.
     
  18. World Destroyer

    World Destroyer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    United States
    In one of my biqs, I changed "Christian Principate" to "Byzantine Principate" and moved it to the "Fall of Rome" tech (with an explanation that, with the fall of the Western Empire, the Eastern Empire came into its own as the "Roman" legacy carrier). I gave it a lower free units support cap and a higher cost for each unit over the free support cap (to encourage the player to significantly cut down his/her armies). I upped the worker productivity to kinda balance that out. Thoughts?
     
  19. Christophoros

    Christophoros Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Canada
    Some explanations :

    - 50 gold as a starting treasury is not lower. Starting treasury right now is 25. What I'm doing is removing the municipium, which surely shouldn't be there and adding 25 gold to the treasury, as a "compensation".

    - I am giving Valentia to the Barcids, like someone suggested earlier, in order to remove the possibility of ROP raping your way out of a fight with Hannibal like you can if Barcid only has 1 city.

    - The long wonder scheme of the 2nd century looks complicated, but it plays out simply enough and it is there only to ensure that the player first moves from Principate to civil war, then to Governmental crisis, then to civil war again and finally to Dominate. It is impossible to weasel out of, it is historically accurate and will serve to make the 225-285 period something to remember...

    - I think the fact that there will be no air travel between England and Europe after 325 will not force the player out of England, but it will force the player to commit a lot of military resources to hold on to it. But I might consider allowing a single portus mercatorius in Londinium or something.

    - There will now be an incentive to switch to Christian Dominate when you reach Justinian. The 3 very useful wonders will be incentive enough. I hope... Don't forget that the government will be better than it is right now.

    - As for the cataphractus upgrade, I know it is problematic. I'm thinking of patching it in because, in my wildest dreams, I imagine a world in which the player will desperately need that upgrade in order to conquer back the lost provinces of the empire. Of course, it might be too powerful if, despite all the changes, the loss - reconquest never happens, but I'm willing to have it test drive.

    - For the legion merc : I like your idea, CB. I think I could work with that.

    - I will definitely remove the disband option from servus and all roman support free unit.

    - As for the name, if you have "Principate", there is really no reason whatsoever not to have "Dominate" instead of "Absolute Principate". Dominate, just like Principate, is a creation of modern historians and they balance one another perfectly.

    - Just to be clear : the goal of the patch is to try, through the simulation of economical hardships in the 3rd and 5th centuries, to simulate some kind of loss followed by a revival later on. That is the foundation of most of the changes I want implemented. I am not sure just how exactly it will work out, but I already know there will be at least another patch after this one.

    I'm giving people 4-5 days to react to this post and, after I have taken in account all replies and opinions, I will actually make the patch and it should be ready some time after that. Thanks to everyone for their participation.
     
  20. Stazro

    Stazro Prince

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    at the shores of Rhine
    I personally would prefer an african city, because an african city is much harder to take. Just a second city which can be conquered in the next move doesn't change much (you don't even need a rop-rape, as you have armies, equites and velites who are able to take a city on their own in one turn).
    Giving it a defensive wonder to avoid this would be senseless on the other hand, because Valentia is not much later in the timeline than mediolanum (the romans conquered spain while Hannibal was still roaming in italy).

    Another thing which i could not spot on the list: Triumvirate should not be able to hurry.
     

Share This Page