Scenario: 200BC on GEM

[Genghis_Kai]

200BC - The rise of Rome and Han
This is the thread to discuss and update anything related to the 200BC on GEM scenario development.

Current release (Version 1.2) - Released: 25 Jul 2008
Units with promotions now starts at their appropriate level.


Previous release (Version 1.0) - Released: 15 Jun 2008
The 200BC scenario starts with plenty of actions around the globe: The 2nd Punic war between Rome and Carthage; The 1st Macedonian war between Macedon and the Aetolian League; the 5th Syrian War between the Seleucid and Ptolemy; the rise of Xiong Nu and the Chu Han contention in China.

The playable nations are:

Spoiler :

Rome
Macedon (inc. Achaea + Bithynia)
Greece (Aetolia + Pergamon)
Gaul (Celt)
Briton (Celt)
Teuton (Germanic)
Veneti (Slavs)
Dacia

Carthage
Ptolemic
Meroe
Armenia
Sheba
Selucid
Parthia

Bactria
Scythia
Wu Sun
Yue Zhi
Mauryan
Satavahana
Cholas

Xiong Nu
Han
Chu
Nan Yue
Mon
Gojoseon (Korea)
Yamato (Japan)

Nok
Bantu

Maya
Cuicuilco
Chavin
Lapita (Polynesia)

Instruction
This scenario will come with GEM mod version 5. Only available in BTS version.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Screenshots group 1:

Rome, Iberia/Carthage, Gaul and Greece.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Screenshots group 2:

Syria/Egypt, Persia, Meroe and Bactria

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Screenshots group 3:

India, Xiongnu, China and Japan/Korea

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Screenshots group 4:

Mesoamerica and Incas

 

[Agent327]

200BC - The rise of Rome and Han
This is the thread to discuss and update anything related to the 1940AD on GEM scenario development.

An impressive list, for 200 BC.

 

[Traiano]

It looks awesome, I'm very eager to try it out.

Especially after the unfortunate defayance of IJnavy 200 BC

 

[Genghis_Kai]

So far I am facing a problem in city placement - whether or not I should give cities to those civs such as Teuton and Britons. There were definitely fortified settlements in those area, but I can't find any names. I am very reluctant to place cities with names that are not of that age.

 

[ijnavy]

I gave cities of different tribe names. Like for the Celts in my 200 BC, I found names of different Celtic tribes and used those names as names for cities in the region where they lived.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I gave cities of different tribe names. Like for the Celts in my 200 BC, I found names of different Celtic tribes and used those names as names for cities in the region where they lived.

Yeah, in some sense, I am doing just that. However, in more details, the questions I am concerning are:

1) If I give cities to represent each tribe, then all of north Europe would be full of cities. Should I really do that for a 200BC scenario?
2) Which of these cities should be placed under the 'Teuton' or 'Gaul' in the scenario? Which should be left as Barbarian or minor nations? This is very difficult. On one hand, I can't place all of them according to their ethnicity. I remember I once saw an ancient scenario with Celt having cities everywhere in Europe and got even more cities than the Roman! On the other hand, for game balancing, I want to give each civ more than one city.

So what I am doing, is to find out which tribe among all is the most strongest/representative, then find out those other tribes of the same ethnicity who were at least nominally united or friendly with that representative tribe to be put under it's banner. The complexity of Europe at the time is driving me crazying and that was why I stopped working on 200BC scenario and worked on the 1940AD scenario previously!

 

[ijnavy]

Yes, choose the Strongest tribe. For Gaul, there are enough cities, I choose the city that became Paris (forgot the name), Burdigala, and Condate. For the Celtic tribes, I remember the capital was Boii. Maybe my 200 BC map can help a little?
Also, I would change Thrace to Dacia, I think that It was stronger.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Yes, choose the Strongest tribe. For Gaul, there are enough cities, I choose the city that became Paris (forgot the name), Burdigala, and Condate. For the Celtic tribes, I remember the capital was Boii. Maybe my 200 BC map can help a little?
Also, I would change Thrace to Dacia, I think that It was stronger.

OK, I will take a look at yours. Thanks.

 

[Traiano]

Genghis Kai, how is it going with the set up?

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Genghis Kai, how is it going with the set up?

The scenario is basically completed. I just need to play test it more for game balance.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

New screenshots are uploaded.

 

[Agent327]

Nice screenshots! Tried out Rome: lost 4 Pretorians, 2 Galleys in about 10-11 turns, but managed to build the Oracle plus capture Carthage and Numantia before making peace, leaving Carthage with a capital in S Italy. (For the future I plan to conquer/assimilate some more cities and, having made peace with the Gauls and Macedon, see which civ is next to be taken on. Carthage may declare war again - though I doubt it - and their Numidian Cavalry is quite deadly on occasion, but after gaining 3rd rank in score I reckon there's bigger fish around to tackle.)

Noticed 2 things while playing:

- the Carthaginian fleet appears to be a little too large (after the 1st Punic War they were allowed something like 10 warships, which in Civ terms translates to 1 Trireme - the Galleys I don't mind); Rome should have naval supremacy in the Western Mediterranean
- "Gallic leader" can be Brennus (too late), Ambiorix or Vercingetorix (too early); if you don't want a known Gallic leader I can find another name in Caesar's Gallic Wars.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

- the Carthaginian fleet appears to be a little too large (after the 1st Punic War they were allowed something like 10 warships, which in Civ terms translates to 1 Trireme - the Galleys I don't mind); Rome should have naval supremacy in the Western Mediterranean

Oh ok. I will check.

 

[Marmoteo]

I played this scenario a couple of times, and noticed that Dacia for some reason manages to found Islam quite early in the game. That's ehm... weird. Dunno if they are very close to researching Divine Right when they start the game or what. Also Christianity is founded in the first couple of turns too. Maybe it's just my luck, or lack of it, haha.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

JEELEN, I've checked and I didn't see that agreement after 1st Punic War. Moreover, there were records that the Carthaginian uses 55 ships to invade Sicily during 2nd Punic War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lilybaeum.

Is there anyone else played the 200BC scenario? I haven't got time to try it myself. I would like to hear more feedback on it.

 

[Traiano]

JEELEN, I've checked and I didn't see that agreement after 1st Punic War. Moreover, there were records that the Carthaginian uses 55 ships to invade Sicily during 2nd Punic War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lilybaeum.

Is there anyone else played the 200BC scenario? I haven't got time to try it myself. I would like to hear more feedback on it.

I have a game in progress - as the romans -and I'd like to post when I'm done with it.
The scenario is solid and works well.

My only reservation regards the diplomatic modifier when it goes to over -20.
I understand the attempt to reproduce historical clashes...but that high undermines nearly every chance to stipulate a peace treaty.
I'm sure it was done on purpose but who knows, perhaps a -20 is better than a -100, if you want a less deterministic approach.

Ah, Parthia starts well against the Seleucids but ultimately failed - at least in this game - to expand.
Their attack was rebuffed and they ended up with 3 cities.

There are a few city names, latin ones, that should be edited/fixed.
I'll try to post a list later.

In conclusion, extremely good scenario.