Strategy discussion

[Paavontinus]

Is it actually possible to create the Roman Empire within the the historical timeframe?

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

Depends what you mean by "historical timeframe".

Under the longer classical period of 1.183 it's certainly possible to recreate the Roman empire at its maximum extent tin terms of territory by the end of turn 170, but that's 450 AD, while its maxiumum extent was nearer 300 years or so before that in reality.

Whereas of course what you can achieve in game terms by 600 BC is far in excess of what the Romans occupied historically in 600 BC (pretty well much a single village).

Cheers, Luke

 

[Walliard]

Probably not, unless you're particularly lucky with the combat RNG.

 

[sk8er AG]

thts one thing about romes appearnce tht seems hard to comprimise. rome as a major power nvr appeard for until much later than its start time in rfc. however i doubt much would be different if rome appeared later in the game. I doubt greece would settle in sicily and carthage would stay turtled away in west africa without colonizing spain. Meanwhile rome would conquer even less with a later start time than it usually does, which in my game seems to be italy and france.
I think it would be nicer to see italy appear as a power in the 600ad map, which it only occasionaly does, only to be taken advantage of by other powers

 

[sk8er AG]

Playing as France(1700s) on monarch and having a hard time with economy. I have the majority of Italy and Algeria, along with Hudson bay and Lousiana. If I turn the territories in North america into colonies or give them to the United States will that hurt or help my economy, I know expanding wont help, but i dont understand how a colony works or what whether giving away the territories will be helpful or vice versa.

 

[blizzrd]

Playing as France(1700s) on monarch and having a hard time with economy. I have the majority of Italy and Algeria, along with Hudson bay and Lousiana. If I turn the territories in North america into colonies or give them to the United States will that hurt or help my economy, I know expanding wont help, but i dont understand how a colony works or what whether giving away the territories will be helpful or vice versa.

Colonies in RFC aren't the same as they are in regular BTS. Selecting to give independence to a colony (using the F1 screen) in RFC will just result in a bunch of your cities becomining an independent (grey) kingdom.

You will get a stability benefit from releasing cities (either to another civ or to independence), but it won't be in the economy category.

To improve your economy:
Build Cottages. (this is the most important step)
Build Windmills.
Build Watermills.
Trade for resources and gold-per-turn deals with other civs.
Avoid Free Market (Great Depressions).

With your French empire, you should really be able to get a 5-star economy stability rating.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Considering the context, yes, this is technically historical, since the East did last another 1000 years.

Of course, then you later lose all those Turkish cities...

True but by ahistorical I meant ignoring the Western Empire entirely during the classical era and then conquering them after modern (or medieval ) France and Spain have spawned.

 

[Rod]

You know I was just thinking, why not change the start conditions of Rome.

Let Rome appear later but in a different way, Automatically Rome could start with 3 cities in Italy that are founded simultaniously. Rome, Pompeji, Massilia

It could also start with an army standing in Greece and locked in war with Greece

Then of course Rome would appear only around 300 BC.

 

[sk8er AG]

sounds like a good idea, i think there should be someway to incourage rome to settle the iberian peninsula, or better yet to have carthage found Qart hadasht(Iberian city) and have the romans conquer it.

 

[fearuin]

I'll even go further, for example encouraging Greece to found Rhodes, which under Roman dominion would turn to be Tarraco, and under Spanish rule, Tarragona. It should be one tile to the north of Spanish Barcelona. I know that Tarraco and Rhodes aren't the same, but the distance between them is less than 100 km, what in RFC terms is insignificant.

I encourage the idea of Carthage founding Qart Hadasht. Just for more information, the Roman name of this city is Cartago Nova, and the Spanish one, Cartagena.

That way, if you go to war with Greece, or Carthage you'll have to deal with the Iberian problem. Also, I would like to see more Celt presence in France. I think one or two cities would ease Rome to dominate that area, too. However, I'm not sure about what to choose. My suggestions are Tolosa (French Toulouse) and Parisii (Paris, of course). If you don't like them to be Celt, you can make them just independent.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

I'll even go further, for example encouraging Greece to found Rhodes, which under Roman dominion would turn to be Tarraco, and under Spanish rule, Tarragona. It should be one tile to the north of Spanish Barcelona. I know that Tarraco and Rhodes aren't the same, but the distance between them is less than 100 km, what in RFC terms is insignificant.

Rhodes is an island off the coast of Turkey; it is nowhere near Spain. The only major Greek city-state anywhere near Spain was Massila, modern Marsellies. There were a few tiny emporia in Spain, but you are talking about populations measured ipretty well much in the hundreds.

Cheers, Luke

 

[sk8er AG]

There was talk about which cities to found for England a while back and have same question, what does everyone else found? Wikirhye says to go on a founding spree and somehow eliminate portugal, but i try to keep my games as historically accurate as possible so i didnt go for that. Having a hard time with monarch so any advice is welcome.

I used to go for Cadiz(on hill), Madrid, and Barcelona. Now have switched to trying Santandar, Madrid, Valencia, and sometimes Mellila, or Cadiz(near portugal). for New world have tried a mix, now i usually keeping El Cuidad de Mexico (delete all else), along with Cuzco, Tucume, and occasionally the city in the south. For the one i found i go for either Buenos Aires or La Habana. like i said any tips welcome.

 

[fearuin]

Rhodes is an island off the coast of Turkey; it is nowhere near Spain. The only major Greek city-state anywhere near Spain was Massila, modern Marsellies. There were a few tiny emporia in Spain, but you are talking about populations measured ipretty well much in the hundreds.

Cheers, Luke

I meant Rhode, not Rhodes, sorry. Modernly it's called Rosas, Roses in English. Here you can find out more about the town I mean. Actually, it was founded by colonists from the Rhodes in southern Turkey. I'm spanish, I know the history of my country .

About sk8er AG's question, my choices are usually Santiago de Compostela, Santander (with "e"), Madrid, Valencia (or Murcia) and Cadiz. Also, I usually go for that precious iron in the northwest african coast. I can't recall the name of the city, sorry. Starting there, I usually conquer or found some cities (usually Melilla, as you say) so the straight remains inside my frontiers.

For the new world, I usually mantain the cities founded by the aztecs. About the incan cities, I mantain La Paz (the northernmost city) and the capital. Also, I usually found Los Angeles or San Diego, in US California. Usually that will mean a war with America, but if you manage well, you can resist and mantain all the east coast, making US no more than a backwater power.

 

[Tullius]

The only solution to economy stability problems appears to be Commonwealth or continued expansion. Does anyone see any other ways to manage this problem? I've had four vassals, trading vigorously with all of them, yet my economy still winds up causing my empire to collapse. Any thoughts?

 

[blizzrd]

Two words: Golden Ages.

Instead of settling all of those Great People, if you want to bring an ancient civ all the way through to the time deadline you may just need to bank all the specialists and use them for repeated Golden Ages in the Modern Era. I play for UHVs or conquests so I can't say I've any direct experience in what you're attempting. But I do know that Greece can sure as heck get a lot of specialists.

 

[sennomulo]

Yeah, beeline for Parthenon and Leaning Tower...and the Mausoleum of Mausollos too of course! Then just sit back and enjoy a bazillion years of GP-induced Golden Ages, as you build the Taj Mahal and Olympic Park.

 

[Tullius]

Heh, but you do lose a lot of production/research/commerce by not settling the GPs.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

Heh, but you do lose a lot of production/research/commerce by not settling the GPs.

Sure, if you are in it for the short-term gains only. But the question is how to survive in the long term. For that you need to plan ahead - like saving a bunch of great people for a rainy day rather than burning them immediately. And you *know* that rainy days are going to come a plenty as your stability starts to head downhill...

Cheers, Luke

 

[Tullius]

OK, but if I am in a constant golden age, wouldn't stability adjust to my new economy, and I would stop getting benefit from that after 3-6 turns, when it readjusts to my higher commerce yield?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Yes, and I've seen collapses even in golden ages. The old patches' foreign stability is really bad, so you should try the new patch.