Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Asclepius]

Anyway, if we dig into this a little, it starts getting tricky to define what would be a "fair" way to play...Ultimately, everyone plays their own game, but if we agree not to raze cities, maybe we should we have some other conduct guidelines as well, to retain the "spirit" of the Mod since the Civ software leaves some gaps.

That's a good point you raise there. What exactly is a game exploit and what is just tactical play? Slave rushing and ship bombard I don't have a problem with as the AI does similar things but certain cities should definitely not be accepted in peace treaties and that should probably be added to the readme.

 

[Gunner]

Please keep the naval units with better attack than defense! It really makes sea combat soooo much better. I just can't stand it whan combat loses all trappings of strategy (not saying that civ ever had that much to start with.)

I also think that naval bombardment should be kept. It gives the navy more importance, otherwise I think it really could be completley ignored. If you're complaining about pirates killing your roads, then either sink them or even better, conquer their cities.

 

[Hrafnkell]

Please keep the naval units with better attack than defense! It really makes sea combat soooo much better. I just can't stand it whan combat loses all trappings of strategy (not saying that civ ever had that much to start with.)

I also think that naval bombardment should be kept. It gives the navy more importance, otherwise I think it really could be completley ignored. If you're complaining about pirates killing your roads, then either sink them or even better, conquer their cities.

Fleets will always be important, without bombardment, because they are needed to control the sealanes between cities. You cannot safely transport armies without adequate escort. Bombardment is completely unnecessary, IMHO as well as unrealistic.

Conquering pirate cities, yes, of course...wish I'd thought of that. As for sinking them, the Romans, as I've noted many times before, have an inadequate navy, and triremes are easy prey for pirates.

 

[loki1232]

If you want cities to be injured in "bloody assualts" you could give some units collateral damage.

 

[pinktilapia]

They do have Loki, most of the raiding units will occasionaly destroy some improvements in the attacked city.

The naval bombardement argumentation is I feel going nowhere. While I can agree it is not exactly very realistic, there are a few examples in history of succesful bombardement of coasts, and raiding parties, especially of pirates, must have existed as well. The majority seems to be voting for keeping it. I am very keen to look into making land improvements stronger vs. bombardement, but I think Civ engine won't allow that

Hrafnkell, ah but it seems you don't appreciate the fact just got better legions and corvus You still want more! I agree with most of your points in theory, but as I said many time, we are in Civ, and they are many aspects we can't change without failing the gameplay. Equal stats for units in attack defense, for ships or land units, ruins most of the strategy possibilities. We will have stacks of units moving, attacking, being attacked, and the whole thing will be random. Troops on hills will mostly always win and the AI will sucide itself on them. Plus, taking any cities would cost you an outrageous amount of men, since you will have all these defensive bonus coming in. In Rye's of Civilization, I already have a hard time taking any city without amassing a horde of troops, due to the too little difference between attack and defence. We don't want a static game don't we?

Concerning the levies incorporated into legions, I didn't know and actually still doubt it. That would be worth some research. My understanding was that no non-citizen were recruited into the legion before the reform of Marius. The levies were however organized similarly to the legions, but of well inferior training and equipement. Nowhere did I read they were incorporated inside the legions, although of course, they did fight beside them. If anyone has better art that the hoplites for them, it would be great!

 

[loki1232]

Is it possible to allow units to bombard from sea? If you, you could have a cheap unit called a raiding/boarding party which could act as the ships bombard but not be too unrealistic.

Also, is Pontus allowed to build Pirate ships? Historically they were used against Rome by Pontus.

If anyone has a save from the beggining of the Barbarian invasions could you please post it up here? I want to be able to test it out, but doubt I will get there anytime soon. Thanks.

 

[pinktilapia]

Brrr Loki, post #666, I escaped narrowly
Pontus has some pirates (actually 2 lairs)
I have no such sav game but repeat one more time that once v1.0 is out, I will make at least another BIQ starting at the end of the BC.
I doubt the AI would ever use raiding unit boarded on ships, even if it can be worked out in the editor...

 

[King Coltrane]

hey guys, heres some news on my suggestions. ok, legio drafting is very cool. conscript legios plus velites to weaken the opposition beforehand equals regular and vet. legios being drafted. i must say i like it more, though i dont know how to make it so legios can stop being drafted and have miles socii be drafted before marius. also, the carthaginians at the gate made it less debilitating to beat carthage. mind you it wasnt easy and i havent taken africa yet, but at least i could rely on the manpower of my cities. i dunno, i think its enjoyable, but then again, it was before we had the draft option WAY back in like version .6

on a sidenote... i just conquered macedonia around 185 bc... with about 10 legios, no consular armies (off fighting carthage) and 3 velites. and by macedonia i mean illyria AND the full force of the phalanxes. i was pretty damn proud of myself lol.

also, i just noticed, why is it that the legio armies cant build roads, or at least not practically build them. 150 turns? thats not gonna fly in my rome.

 

[blitzkrieg80]

I think anyone with the inclination will do as they will once it's downloaded (bound only by the engine) and enjoy it as they see most fitting. This is coming from a cheater ;o) but I know what I'm missing =o(

gringoesteban, you have a good point, but I wouldn't say combined arms is an exploit. Isn't that warfare? Especially concerning the Romans. I personally believe only in close combat, since swords are/were the best killing tools of honor... Anyways, using one super Unit would be an exploit, hence Legions that die unless massed and mixed up with others. I don't like the masses, but they aren't like old Velite masses or Miles Alarius masses.

On the topic of Razing cities and House Rules, I just thought I'd add that I totally believe in Razing cities such as Bovianum, because there just aren't enough resources in its radius for me to waste my time managing, besides its drain on other cities (Capua, Barium, Corfinium)... I am not saying that it should be removed though, because I totally like the concept of pesky Samnite rebels.
I also Razed the Baeleric city Palma in my last game, because the Maintenance cost from that Wonder was severely annoying and I could barely afford things as it was. I liked the Wonder, but it made Units that cost Support, besides its cost!
This is only playing .84 and previous versions...

 

[Hrafnkell]

Hey Pink,

I didn't know we had a corvus now. I started with triremes and haven't survived long enough to see a corvus come into play. I look forward to getting to them!

As for the Roman army, since I don't have time to dig up the quotes in Polybius at the moment, I will quote from a DBA website about the Polybian Roman army, as I know it to be accurate:

During the Polybian period, the Roman state normally levied and supported four active legions of Roman citizens (two Consular armies of two legions each) each year for annual service, which were supplemented by an equal number of cohorts provided by ally/subject Italians. The Punic Wars saw the number of legions greatly expanded, and as disasterous defeats sapped Roman manpower, the Roman Senate even resorted to fielding legions comprised of prisoners.

Source: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/II33.html

I am not saying that these Italian allies fought in the citizen legions. I am saying that allied troops were equipped and organized identically to the citizen legions - hastati, princeps, triarii, etc. and did not fight as Greek hoplite phalanxes as represented in RFRE at the present time. I will dig up the quotes for you when time permits later today...right now, RL awaits.

- Hrafnkell the Harried

 

[IXIRandyIXI]

I also Razed the Baeleric city Palma in my last game, because the Maintenance cost from that Wonder was severely annoying and I could barely afford things as it was. I liked the Wonder, but it made Units that cost Support, besides its cost!
This is only playing .84 and previous versions...

The wonder only costs 5gpt! That couldn't have eaten up your income too much. And if you can't support the Funditores it spawns, then just disband them every time one spawns for a nice production boost in Palma!

Anyway, if we dig into this a little, it starts getting tricky to define what would be a "fair" way to play...Ultimately, everyone plays their own game, but if we agree not to raze cities, maybe we should we have some other conduct guidelines as well, to retain the "spirit" of the Mod since the Civ software leaves some gaps.

That's a good point you raise there. What exactly is a game exploit and what is just tactical play? Slave rushing and ship bombard I don't have a problem with as the AI does similar things but certain cities should definitely not be accepted in peace treaties and that should probably be added to the readme.

As for setting rules to play the game with, well, you guys can go ahead and set your rules and all that other stuff. But I'm still going to play how I always play. The point of the scenario (IMO) is to see how YOU would lead the Roman Empire as it rises to and falls from power, not to simply govern the Empire along the guidelines of how others believe Rome would have been governed. If a city is of so little value to a civ that it is willing to hand it over for a peace treaty, then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to take it. Other things such as pre-placing troops in a civ's territory while having a RoP up, then cancelling it and declaring war, conquering all or most of the civ in 1 turn, I also consider completely viable tactics. I just think that if you start setting too many rules outside of the rules set by the game itself, it starts to become more about the rules than it does about just playing and having fun.

 

[King Coltrane]

marian legion's dont have servus selected under enslave... sux but oh well. fix for next update pink

 

[Asclepius]

As for setting rules to play the game with, well, you guys can go ahead and set your rules and all that other stuff. But I'm still going to play how I always play. The point of the scenario (IMO) is to see how YOU would lead the Roman Empire as it rises to and falls from power, not to simply govern the Empire along the guidelines of how others believe Rome would have been governed. If a city is of so little value to a civ that it is willing to hand it over for a peace treaty, then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to take it. Other things such as pre-placing troops in a civ's territory while having a RoP up, then cancelling it and declaring war, conquering all or most of the civ in 1 turn, I also consider completely viable tactics. I just think that if you start setting too many rules outside of the rules set by the game itself, it starts to become more about the rules than it does about just playing and having fun.

In other words you are exploiting flaws in the Civ game engine to make sure you win. Fair enough, if winning is the only thing that floats your boat but then you can't argue to be realistically playing the scenario as a leader of the Roman Empire. You *know* that certain cities have been designed not to be captured so what is the point of accepting them? You may as well just use the Powerbar every turn to ensure you win everything. To me this just seems like playing chess where your opponent has no Rooks but you have three Queens! Anyway, as you said, ultimately its down to the player to decide but I think some house rules would make the game more enjoyable and more of a challenge.

 

[Asclepius]

I've given up trying to complete my game. Unfortunately, the number of units on the map makes the game unplayable. The turn time is horrific and my PC can't cope. I get a black screen every turn as it struggles to keep up. There are a few scenarios out there that have 20 minute turns, I personally find that unacceptable. It didn't get that bad (5 - 10 minutes maybe) but this is a *long* game and waiting this much after already having played so much is very annoying. I don't have that much time to play!

So, something needs to be done to the end game. The number of units has to be drastically cut whilst still achieving Barbarian overkill. Whether this should be done by halving the number of units but increasing the attack figure or trying to get border cities to culture flip, I don't know, but turn time has to be reduced or no one will ever finish this game.

The down side is the Romans are already completely outclassed by the Incursatores and Hun archers, making the Barabrians even stronger would be silly. The 2hp conscripts merely supply the Germans with a free 4hp Bellator or the Scythians with another 8(?)hp Hun archer, but increasing Roman defence any more would stop any Roman collapse from ever happening. A bit of a conundrum this....

 

[Gunner]

What type of computer do you have?

Maybe after 1.0 something could be done with an alternate "fast" version.

 

[Asclepius]

What type of computer do you have?

Maybe after 1.0 something could be done with an alternate "fast" version.

I have an Athlon XP 2800+ with a stack of memory, so I don't think the problem is due to my processor. I know speed isn't a selling point for this mod but, for me at least, when turn times start creeping past five minutes I start to lose interest. Playability is of major importance to me so I would hope there is only one version of the scenario and that is playable on a reasonably fast PC without taking a month to complete. The strange thing is the game already has a lot of units but remains relatively quick up to the Incursio Magna and Hun units. I'm wondering whether the turn lag isn't actually more to do with the HN units rather than simply the total number of units. I remember the PTW RaR mod became unplayable after hidden Spy units were added as the AI went into meltdown trying to calculate who could see what and where. I think the same thing is happening here.

 

[IXIRandyIXI]

In other words you are exploiting flaws in the Civ game engine to make sure you win. Fair enough, if winning is the only thing that floats your boat but then you can't argue to be realistically playing the scenario as a leader of the Roman Empire. You *know* that certain cities have been designed not to be captured so what is the point of accepting them? You may as well just use the Powerbar every turn to ensure you win everything. To me this just seems like playing chess where your opponent has no Rooks but you have three Queens! Anyway, as you said, ultimately its down to the player to decide but I think some house rules would make the game more enjoyable and more of a challenge.

Not sure what you meant by "if winning is the only thing that floats your boat but then you can't argue to be realistically playing the scenario as a leader of the Roman Empire." That's kind of like saying a MLB player who only plays to win the games he plays in isn't really a professional baseball player.

Accepting certain cities such as the ones over the marshes doesn't really matter; they're so far-flung, small, worthless, and indefensible that they're bound to fall back into their previous owner's hands anyways. The player can't trade for Pictii any more, so that problem is solved. Other non-marsh cities are bound to eventually fall to the Roman Empire anyways, so why the heck not take the ones you can in a peace treaty if the AI will hand them over? Clearly you were putting a beating on the AI if they become so desperate as to hand over a city or two for peace.

As for my RoP conquer tactic, I really don't see what's wrong with it. If I have such a larger army than the civ that I can actually split it up among all its cities to conquer it in one turn, then heck, the only thing I'm saving is time. Not like the AI would've done much else. Also, there's some areas that you don't "realistically" conquer by force in RFRE: Pergamum (both cities), Cyrenaica (Western part of Ptolemian Egypt), etc. Conquering the entirety of the Roman Empire in time in RFRE presents quite a challenge and you're only given a very small bag of tricks to use to fight your way through; why waste those tricks for silly concepts such as "honor" in a game?

 

[IXIRandyIXI]

I have an Athlon XP 2800+ with a stack of memory, so I don't think the problem is due to my processor. I know speed isn't a selling point for this mod but, for me at least, when turn times start creeping past five minutes I start to lose interest. Playability is of major importance to me so I would hope there is only one version of the scenario and that is playable on a reasonably fast PC without taking a month to complete. The strange thing is the game already has a lot of units but remains relatively quick up to the Incursio Magna and Hun units. I'm wondering whether the turn lag isn't actually more to do with the HN units rather than simply the total number of units. I remember the PTW RaR mod became unplayable after hidden Spy units were added as the AI went into meltdown trying to calculate who could see what and where. I think the same thing is happening here.

That's strange that it slows down for you in the later games. You'd think it would run faster since there aren't so many civs around! What settings do you have set for the unit actions? Do you have your computer animate every move in the game? I only have it animate battles and my manual moves; that alone improved things dramatically for me.

 

[Asclepius]

As for my RoP conquer tactic, I really don't see what's wrong with it.

Nah, I don't see anything wrong with the RoP trick because the AI does it as well. That is really the basis for me in determining whether a tactic is acceptable or not. As for accepting all cities in treaties though, you have to remember the "edge of the world" problem, which is I believe why the "marsh" cities were added. Any player who can clear a corner of a map in Civ has an advantage that obviously doesn't exist in reality. Also, logistically speaking, the Romans were not capable of surpressing and occupying the Highlands of Scotland or the forests of central Germany so the player should be prevented from doing so as the game engine isn't complex enough to show these problems.

 

[Asclepius]

That's strange that it slows down for you in the later games. You'd think it would run faster since there aren't so many civs around! What settings do you have set for the unit actions? Do you have your computer animate every move in the game? I only have it animate battles and my manual moves; that alone improved things dramatically for me.

I even had "animate battles" turned off for some turns, but it was still unbelievably slow As standard I normally only have show moves without the animated bit and combat with animation, otherwise sometimes you can miss what has happened!