The New Scenarios

[Flying Mathias]

So in Gods and Kings we've got three new Scenarios, Rise of Rome, Into the Renaissance, and Empires of the Smoky Skies.

So far I've only played Empires of the Smoky Skies, but that game was amazing. I was playing as Pulias on a European map, and my civilization began in area comparable to Germany. I had a steady rivalry with Eruch through the whole game, as well as an alliance with Orlin that fell apart near the end and a friendship with Vedria that lasted the whole game. I love the military system they had in the scenario, and the victory conditions were really unique. I also think the scenario is great for showing off how the espionage system works. Highly recommend everyone to check it out on a European map setting (My new favourite map type)

What do you guys think of the new scenarios?

 

[fuzzatron717]

I haven't in depth tryed the fall of rome scenario but I did look at the policys for the factions and the map perspective from byzantium the three factions are the Romes Second all the Barbarian civs third the sassnids to best start the scenario are the sassanids for beginners intermidates the barbarians and Byzantium and expert the western romans as from a quick overview of the scenario.

 

[janboruta]

Played the Steampunk scenario yesterday as Dalmace - I really loved it, even though the map/city graphics were unchanged. But the new units are plainly awesome - well-designed, good-looking and full of flavor. And I found it hard to keep all the three titles at the same time. I was always eclipsed in production by Orlin and Eruch (lucky starts), in military by Vedria and in social policies by Pulias. I had the most wonders. I was once beaten to victory by ONE turn when Orlin switched its capital to production focus But I haven't gone to war to fix this and resigned. Gonna start today as Vedria or Pulias.

I also launched the Into the Renaissance, but it started butchering my CPU right away. The map is HUGE. I will revisit it soon because the lag was not that bad actually, but it made me play a random map instead.

Can't say much about the Roman scenario, but I like the UU's and UA's of Barbarian civs.

 

[Morningcalm]

I loved Smokey Skies, but it was too short.

Fall of Rome I'm less in love with. It's just combat, but without any real changes or unique conditions per se. It's ultimately micromanagement tedium. =|

Into the Renaissance is big, but it felt like a regular random map to me. The control of the Holy City mechanics weren't quite clear, and I didn't think they were truly different from any regular game of the expansion (except that it was more limited).

 

[ahawk]

Fall of Rome is actually enough to make you think.

Usually, the combat/production only scenarios have played poorly (thinking back to even Civ 4 scenarios). But Fall of Rome is actually not a bad game for its 70-turn duration. Why? Because there are a number of scenario-only units that aren't just re-skins of regular units (for instance, the Franks get a unit that can use enemy roads right out of the box). These units can be used fairly creatively in-and-of-themselves, but even moreso when considering the UA. Again referrencing the Franks, if my UU can move on enemy roads, and my UA lets my units heal when they pillage a non-road improvement, then I can put two-and-two together and really run and gun.

Beyond that, the policy trees, while basic, have been re-tooled with the unique design of having East/West Rome get penalties for picking up SP's rather than bonuses. Which wouldn't be so interesting except that you gain culture for every city conquered in this scenario. Meaning: when barbs conquer a city, they pick up speed; when Rome re-conquers old cities or conquers barbarian lands, they get one step closer to a penalty SP. This really makes you think about what city you should take.

Fall of Rome is an outstanding scenario. I haven't played the other two yet, so I won't comment.

 

[Halcyan2]

Beyond that, the policy trees, while basic, have been re-tooled with the unique design of having East/West Rome get penalties for picking up SP's rather than bonuses. Which wouldn't be so interesting except that you gain culture for every city conquered in this scenario. Meaning: when barbs conquer a city, they pick up speed; when Rome re-conquers old cities or conquers barbarian lands, they get one step closer to a penalty SP. This really makes you think about what city you should take.

I like the SP mechanic for the two Romes.

It's a bit weird though that the cultural buildings are actually *bad* because you don't want culture in this game. (You would think that they could rework the cultural buildings to give you negative culture so there would actually be a reason to built them).

However, if you conquer barbarian cities, it actually helps delay the "bad SP's," because the total amount needed for the next SP increases (due to an extra city).

Interestingly enough, the rogue general SP isn't actually that bad for Western Europe. If you are prepared, you can end up recruiting most of those units so they're kind of like "free units"....

 

[ahawk]

However, if you conquer barbarian cities, it actually helps delay the "bad SP's," because the total amount needed for the next SP increases (due to an extra city).

Interestingly enough, the rogue general SP isn't actually that bad for Western Europe. If you are prepared, you can end up recruiting most of those units so they're kind of like "free units"....

That's true about the cities: as long as the city East/West Rome conquer doesn't reward them with much culture, it's actually beneficial to retake it.

What you're saying about Rogue General is kind of like a strat I heard brought up concerning the Aztecs in the base-game: if you build a huge army, then intentionally sell off all the buildings you own that produce happiness, you can then kill the rebels that spawn every few turns and easily gain culture long after the barbs have been wiped out. Thus, the Aztec UA could be used to turn a penalty into a benefit.