The Conquests

That is weird.................Pazyryk is the name of a centaur in the fantasy novel I am writing. I don't know if I got that from this conquest or not. If it was original, that is really freaky.

The epic conclusion awaits...
 
Chapter 19: So Close Yet So Far

As many Settlers as possible where useful were rushed in 290. It probably should have been done a bit earlier, but oh well, nothing can change that now.

In 292, the prayers that Carthage would move in North Africa were answered... and they did move! Woohoo. It would now be possible to fit in a couple more cities, but not as many as they wanted to. If only they'd gotten to Africa earlier...

The Scythians, surprisingly, moved a Spearmen away from Kul Oba, and another Spearmen with a Settler. What, are they trying to lose this city? Thought the Macedonian Commander with the Cavalry outside.

They also signed a Peace Treaty with Rome. They'd probably been on and off at war since forever now, but done so little actual fighting it was hard to notice.



Getting rid of Kimmeria and Maiotia were first on the order of business in 295. Kul Oba would follow shortly after.

Kimmeria was defended by 2 units of Spearmen. They weren't very good at defense, so the Cavalry outside managed to bring them down with little effort.



Maiotia was a little tougher, defended by 2 units of Spearmen and another of Scythian Riders, but still, that was no match for the entire army of Ajax.



A stubborn Rider in the north defeated a Cavalry charge, but was killed by a second one. Some workers were also captured and added to the population of Getae.

Kul Oba should have been captured this year. There wasn't much there but a few Spearman and Archers, and 4 units of Macedonian Heavy Cavalry were outside. But it wasn't. The spearmen summoned the strength to win here, forcing two of the Cavalry units to retreat and even killing another one. Only one Scythian spearman unit fell. Kul Oba remained Scythian, and there was nothing Macedon could do to take it now.

But now there was nothing left to do except Settle, wherever it was possible to do so. First, New Pharsalos and New Knossos were built in the North, in the gap between Marathon and Solokha.





Then, New Argos, New Mycenae, New Herakleia, and New Ephesus were built in North Africa. Regretably, New Mycenae was a bit farther North than intended, because Numidian Mercenaries were occupying the intended location (Damn it)









It should be noted there were still 2 settlers left and room for one more city. It hadn't been decided yet whether to build that city or to join both settlers to a different city in North Africa.

A bit after, New Rhodes was built in Armenia...



New Eretria, New Troy, and New Marathon were built in Scythia, using all but one Settler there (the one in Ulsky hadn't been decided if it was needed or not, and couldn't add much territory anyway)...







New Halicarnassus, New Pergamon, and New Miletos were built in Anatolia...







By this point, it was realized that the last Settlers in Scythia and North Africa were needed, so they built the cities of New Artemisium...



...and New Megara.



The last Settler joined New Megara.

"Alright, what are we at now?"

"19% Land Area, 40% Population."

"Damn... I hope expansion through culture next turn will get us above 20. In the meantime, join workers to cities."

And so they did, all throughout the land. A few weren't, because they had no city to go to, but most did. The ones near Cyzicus were sadly unable to join, as the wheat outside the city had recently become polluted, and caused the city to begin starving. But most other places, they joined.

"Now what?"

"42% Population..."

So that was it. They had lost. The expansion next turn didn't even get them to 20. They spent as much money as possible on luxuries cause, why not? It was over, they might as well. Hell, they might even eke out a few extra score points.

Macedonian Cavalry killed a Scythian Spearman unit and captured the Settler it was guarding. Then in 297, Scythian Archers attacked, drove them away, and took the Settler back. Not that it mattered.

In 300, they had failed. They were still at only 19% and 42%, not nearly enough. And despite their gaining, they still weren't ahead of Carthage.

Macedon's time was up. And they had failed.

 
Last edited:
Well, that's the end of it. It was fun while it lasted, but in the end, I couldn't win.

I'll call it a moral victory even if not an actual one, because hey, I did conquer Persia. I was starting to catch up a lot at the end, and, given time, I'm sure I could have gotten past Carthage's score- maybe even gotten a strong enough military to take some of Carthage or Rome for myself. At the end, I had 99 cities- more than everyone else combined (Rome had 39, Carthage had 47, Scythia had 3), and probably would have gained a couple more if I finished my war with Scythia. My land area and population wasn't quite as big as the combined area/pop of Carthage and Rome, but it was getting pretty close. I probably could have gotten above 20% Land Area if the RNG gave me a bit more luck at Kul Oba, or if I rushed all those Settlers in 285 instead of 290.

This was the Demographics at the end:



94% Approval rating on account of my 100% Lux Slider Spending on the final turn. I don't know who has higher. Probably Scythia, they have about 7 citizens total, so it can't be hard to please all of them.

My GNP and Annual Income shows I was raking in more money than anyone else, which I think is pretty good.

Judging from my Productivity and MFG Goods being 2nd, Carthage was probably outproducing me the whole time, or maybe Rome. No wonder they always had better militaries.

They also must have been better places to live, as at least one of them has a higher Literacy rating and Family Size, and Less pollution, and both of them are above me in Life Expectancy.

So, could I have won? At the end, no. Probably not. It may have been salvagable, but only to someone much better at this game than me. My mistake at the beginning was not building up my military fast enough, cause honestly, there's no excuse for being weak compared to 2 out of 3 of the Northern "Barbarian" civs, which I was at one point. Would it have made a difference? Maybe, maybe not. Another thing that screwed me was Scythia siding with Persia instead of me at the very beginning, slowing my growth North a bit and detracting attention from the Eastern front at a crucial moment. It also started a complex alliance wave that got me at war with the Celts, Goths, and Romans all at some point or other.

Egypt also was a point that hurt me. Not directly- but Carthage and Egypt being at war certainly hurt me for a while. During the time Egypt was being conquered by Carthage, they couldn't focus their efforts on Persia, so there was quite a gap in which Persia was fighting nobody down there, and could send a bunch of Immortals and Cavalry my way. It also gave Carthage a large power and score boost that I never quite managed to overcome.

You might have noticed that this war started near the beginning of the game, when Rome MA'ed Egypt against Carthage. I think Egypt's tendency to die in this scenario comes not from the fact that they're weak, but from the fact that they're weak and that the AI signs military alliances so easily, so Egypt often ends up at war with either Carthage or Persia, who conquers them with little effort.

Later, I really needed to start the Settling push faster, and rush some Settlers just a few turns earlier. I have nobody but myself to blame for not figuring that out until it was too late to do anything about it.

And there's some places were just a few things happening differently, whether they be my RNG luck at Kul Oba, or anywhere for that matter, or who built certain wonders, or Carthage blocking me in Africa, could have made a difference- maybe all the difference in the world.

So, I lost. Oh well, nothing much to do but move on to the next one, and cause death to Romans. :mwaha:

For all interested, in this spoiler is the end map, the VSS, and the Histographs.

Spoiler :


Both Carthage and Rome buit a city on the last turn. I guess they wanted to deprive me of that measely 0.2% of Population. :lol:

Everyone got a GA at some point, to the surprise of none. A few MGL's.



Earlier, Carthage's 10% of Land Area was higher. I guess Rome must have gotten a little bit more.

Rome probably hs about 27% or 28% Population. Scythia has about 0.1 and 0.1 of both, more or less.







I'm not sure if Carthage has more or less culture than me. I know they have more score, though.

OTOH, I seem to be getting close to owning about half of the power graph. Suck it, Carthage!


So, that done, a question:

I'm going on to Fall of Rome next, unless you think I should replay this one and attempt to win. Which barbarian tribe should I chose to burn Rome with?
 
:goodjob: You may have not won, but you were only off by 1%!

I'm playing as the Celts for my FoR game, but I'm not sure if they're the best one, because your powerhouses are on the edge of the map.

Franks, maybe? Or Sassanids?
 
1% Land Area. I was off by 8% Population.

The Celts have the disadvantage of being on the edge of the map all crowded up, instead of getting to choose where to build cities like everyone else. But, they aren't too bad, they do have Gallic Swordsmen. I've destroyed both Roman Empires with the Celts before.

For that reason, I want to do it with someone else this time, per going with my usual thing with these scenarios for trying to win with someone I haven't won with yet.

And Sassanids lame. Sassanids not true barbarian! True barbarian have different stuff.

Also, it's fun to watch the computer inexplicably switch them to Imperialism every single time. :lol:
 
1% Land Area. I was off by 8% Population.
D'oh!


How about Western Rome Ostrogoths? Huns have it easy at the start with a ton of migrants. However, there isn't Iron nearby... :mischief:


I got it! How about the Vandals?
 
I started FoR the other day, didn't do anything with it, but I played as the Visigoths. Not so good. Don't do the Celts.

You....could....open up the Conquests editor and see which barbabarbarbarbarbar tribe has the best start. Or not.
 
no, don't play as the celts! not much action the whole game and killing Eastern Rome is going to take a lot of work.

I vote for the Vandals because of a central(ish) starting location so you can hit both Romes.
 
Well, I seem to have about 1 vote for everything. That was helpful. :p
 
Well, there's two for the Vandals, and one or two for the Visigoths, so it's probably between those two.
 
Just for my two cents, I vote for the Vandals :D
 
Well, I vote for the Huns! Actually, I have little knowledge of this conquest game, I don't know if you can even play them, but they were around back then. Otherwise closest civ to the Huns.
 
So, I have about 3 votes for both the Vandals and the Visigoths.

I think I'll go look at what techs they start with and traits they have, then decide between the two, or take another option, screw the votes, and go with someone else. :mischief:
 
I'll vote for Vandals, as they're winning and I want you to get on with the story. Better luck this time!
 
Top Bottom