New PBEM - Rise of Rome Conquest [Archive]

Black_Waltz

10-01-2005, 02:22

Hello all. Finally got back with a new computer and my intrest in Civ III has returned. Probably no-one remembers me here, but never mind. :-p

Anyway, I've been reading some of the spoilers for PBEM games using the Conquests on C3C. They looked quite intresting and I was wondering if anyone would care to join me in a game of one of them? My intrests lie more with the Japaneese Scenario and Rise of Rome, but if anyone wanted to suggest diffrent Conquests I would be willing to listen.

At the minute I'm leaving this pretty open. Just want to get a feel of the activity on the boards and intrest in a game. :)

Edit: Right. Seems that Rise of Rome would be a good Conquest to play. So far there is intrest in Rome and Carthage. However, I am willing to be flexible if someone else would wish to be Carthage. :)

Socrates

10-01-2005, 08:24

Hello. :) I don't remember you, but I'm quite interested in your idea. I have so far only played the first two conquests (BTW I should start the 3rd one someday ;) ), so I know Rise of Rome well now. I'm OK for a PBEM about that one with 3 other players, we'd just need to discuss the rules. Veterans, please step in to advise us ! Oh, I'd prefer to play as Rome, yes, I like it. :D

Black_Waltz

11-01-2005, 09:05

Rise of Rome would be fun. But yes, some input from those that play regularly would be well recieved. *grins* Would be intrested in playing as Carthage or the... Ageans (I think that is who they are - have not played that conquest for an age).

Anyway, I suppose the major rules for discussion would be accelerated production, etc. Now myself... I'm not really keen on Accelrated Production. It seems to throw the balance of the game askew. Then again I'm not sure whether the speed of PBEM's would be adequate for us to get through it this millenia. :-p

Anyway, I will now change the topic since we have decided on a Conquest. We are now awaiting two more players.

Stapel

12-01-2005, 22:16

Count me in!

Stapel

12-01-2005, 22:17

I'll be Persians.

anarres

13-01-2005, 00:11

I'll play, I'll be whoever no-one wants.

Socrates

13-01-2005, 01:02

Cool ! [cool] anarres, I suppose you'll play as Macedon... or Carthage, after re-reading Black_Waltz's post.

Here are my requirements : I don't want to play with accelerated production, I don't want to hear about it. The game will already be quite speedy as it is. Level : dunno, really, maybe Deity, so that the tech learning lasts more than a few dozens of turns ? Normal AI agression, and I think we're set, if everybody agrees.

I'm waiting for more input, and could start the game on Friday evening (I'm Rome = player 1), so that to be sure everything is set.

Oh, an important thing : what about abandonning palace ? Being a fan of RBCiv rules, I'm against it. I'm thinking of it because I know the Persian player is usually tempted to move his capital to his center. I believe it was designed with that in mind, and I believe that Persia is too strong otherwise. I'd like Stapel and veteran players to speak up on this issue.

anarres

13-01-2005, 01:15

Before we start I'd like to know if there are any other rules that anyone wants to play with. Also, what is our commitment to be - how often are we expected to play turns?

My only real desire is to try to play 1 turn a day, but it will all depend on the turn order and when each of us is available in the day.

Black_Waltz

13-01-2005, 03:07

One turn a day will be great. I have no life so thankfully I'm always near a machine.

Anyway, if Anares does not mind I will be Carthage. That will mean the players/civs are:

kryszcztov: Rome
Black_Waltz: Carthage
Stapel: Persians
Anarres: Macedon

Eepies! Quite a lot of skillful players! Should be good fun. :-p

As for options. I'm fine with Accelerated Production off and have no other qualms. Deity may be a tad high for me, though. I would be willing to try it, though. With this scenario more-so focusing on interaction between the humans it may not be that bothersome to me. I will try the scenario tonight and see how I fare.

As for other rules... I do rather have a problem with people placing units around the edges of islands in order to stop sea landings. This is an obvious problem in this conquest due to the lack of an amphibeous attacking unit. So I suggest that we outlaw the intentianal use of this or maybe limit it so that you may only blockade high defence tiles, so that an enemy may not offload their units directly onto a mountain.

Also, locked war. With Carthage/Rome and Macedon/Persia in locked war it can be tempting for the human players to negotiate a peace which seems a tad outwith of the games spirit. Of course, there is the fact that this does not automaticaly lead to no conflict as the domination limit must be acheived somehow... Should we allow truce making to be allowed between locked war parterners?

Oh. And I agree with outloawing the abandon palace exploit.

Hmmm... I think I've covered everything. I'd appreciate feedback to the two issues I've highlighted and if everything is ok I will be ready to play Friday evening. Thankies muchly for agreeing to play. :)

Email: black_waltz -at- tiscali.co.uk

Stapel

13-01-2005, 09:03

To clear things up:
abandoning a palace is is nono.
Abandoning any other city is ok.

anarres

13-01-2005, 11:19

I am ok with no AP and no palace jump and no coast blockades on non-mountain and non-hill tiles.

digger760

13-01-2005, 13:12

I remember you....and our 4 player PBEM with Crocadile and Sir Eric died shortly after you left..your replacement player was not reliable at all :(

It took you a whole year to get a new PC!!!

Black_Waltz

13-01-2005, 14:24

I know! Internet, how I missed you. :-p Sorry to hear about the Crocodile PBEM. I had so many plans worked out. *grins*

Anyway, I checked out Deity... Bloody hell. Tech costs seem astronomical and the happiness curbing quite... Restrictive. Keep in mind though that I have never even played a Deity game before... I'm just taking my first steps into Monarch. :-p

Anyway, I realise that most of your are extremly well practised at the game and to ask you to go much lower would probably mean you would lose intrest. But if we could drop the difficulty a notch I would be indebted. Barring that, some hints on how to survive on Deity would be nice. :-p

*blushes and feels like a newbie again*

Socrates

13-01-2005, 20:09

Black_Waltz, happiness on Deity is the same as on Emperor : you get one content citizen and after that they're unhappy. On Monarch and Regent you get just 2 content citizens. Also, techs' costs seem huge, but if you know this conquest, you know that we usually research all of them by the half of the game at least ; on my solo game on Deity this is what happened. Deity tech cost would allow us to struggle for getting better units and governments for a good part of the game, which I think is nice. As Carthage you'd only face... the Egyptians as AIs (more civs if you want !), so Deity shouldn't be a problem for you.

I agree on no palace jump and usual exploits listed in RBCiv (like ship chaining : NO). Google if you don't know them. About abandoning other cities I don't know... Why couldn't we abandon the capital then ? [mischief] Let's say no abandoning one's own cities, but captured ones are OK. Agree ?

About placing units on coastal tiles, I like the idea to not intentionnally occupy flat tiles. All tiles but hills, mountains and volcanoes shouldn't be permanently occupied by military units (workers or settlers are OK, because I think you can land and capture them immediately). We also should not move our defensive units back and forth on a couple of stretch of land (eg. we shouldn't put units on the southern flat coast on turn n, and then put them on the northern flat coast on turn n+1, this would be considered like permanently occupying flat tiles). Agree on that ?

Locked war ? We can't make peace, even between humans ? At least we can't make ingame peace ? [mischief] The rest is up to each one of us.

Black_Waltz

13-01-2005, 20:30

Ok. I'll view this as my introduction to Deity level. Throwing me in at the deep end but should be rather fun. *grins manically*

As for the workers/settlers on costal tiles. I've never heard of them being captured upon disembarking from ships. I was under the impression that such a move was still classed as 'attacking' and thus could not be done with a unit that does not have amphibeous attacking ability.

Oh yes. And another thing. With PBEM's on combat orientated mods it can sometimes be hard to keep track of battles since the defending side does not see how his units fared. Should we make it so that we have to post combat results against other humans in the open thread? The only problem I see with this is of course this would then alert other players of military weakness.

Anyway, is everyone ok to start this on Friday evening?

anarres

13-01-2005, 20:31

To make this more realistic I'd much rather prefer that NO deals or even private contact are allowed between nations locked in war.

The whole idea is NOT to make it easy on Rome, who have by far the best position. ;)

Black_Waltz

13-01-2005, 20:43

quote:Originally posted by anarres

To make this more realistic I'd much rather prefer that NO deals or even private contact are allowed between nations locked in war.

The whole idea is NOT to make it easy on Rome, who have by far the best position. ;)

*noddles* I would be fine with that. Those uppity Romans will feel the wrath of my gialnt mammals of doom! Mwhahahaha!

*clears throat*

But seriously that would fit well with my idea of the game. There is a kind of... Tenseness knowing that at any time your neighbour could attack. And since in the single player game you could not make peace, the same should be extended in the multiplayer. So no unoffical contacts between Carthage/Rome and Macedon/Persia, as long as everyone agrees.

Socrates

13-01-2005, 21:14

I find anar's idea great : I won't contact Black_Waltz for ingame chatting, and the same goes for anar and Stapel. I'll check for workers and settlers, we must remember that those conquests are "half-C3C-like", they were designed during the development. For example I see no reason not to give archers their defensive bombardment ability, they're so weak already... Anyway we'll play like it was intended. I already fear the odd production thingie to happen again all the time (for example, sometimes you change a farmer to an entertainer, and you get more shields !!! [crazyeye] [cry] ).

akots

13-01-2005, 22:45

Also, limiting abandoning of cities adds greatly to the enjoyment and playability of this game. And limited trades and alliances with AI during the first 10 turns are a must to have. But I think Deity is a bit too much. Rome would not survive for long in this case since Rome will be in constant wars with either Goth or Celts. IMO, Emperor or maximum Demigod would be sufficient for the balance. Carthage is completely safe form the AI and Scyth is the only threat to Macedon whereas Egypt is the only threat to Persia and Scyth are a minor threat. Carthage would obviously try to keep alliance against Rome with Goth/Celts but if Macedon manages to make alliance with Egypt against Persia and Persia allies Scyth against Macedon (but not in reversed order), this can be somewhat balanced. Optimal balance is apparently achieved on Emperor in these cases. But it is your call.

Stapel

13-01-2005, 23:09

Akots,
Do you propose that abandoning cities should be banned completely?

Black_Waltz

14-01-2005, 21:36

Ok. Not sure who should be creating the game. Although did notice one thing. Seems to wish to start with Accelerated Production... I'll nip that in the bud and then start unless someone else was going to start and I just stood on their toes. :-p

Socrates

14-01-2005, 21:38

quote:Originally posted by Black_Waltz

Ok. Not sure who should be creating the game. Although did notice one thing. Seems to wish to start with Accelerated Production... I'll nip that in the bud and then start unless someone else was going to start and I just stood on their toes. :-p

From what I understodd, accelerated production is off. As for player 1 (creator of the game), I think it's me, since I'm Rome (or so I think). I'll create it tonight, but please post here if you have something to say.

Black_Waltz

14-01-2005, 21:44

Well I had a look in the PBEM creation screen and it says that AP is on as default on multiplayer. So methinks that has to be edited (unless I'm a moron and there is another way to do it).

Anyway, twas not sure when evening was for you. Probably be best to list our Timezones. :-p

GMT here. Britain.

akots

14-01-2005, 22:03

quote:Originally posted by Stapel

Akots,
Do you propose that abandoning cities should be banned completely?

Exactly.

Black_Waltz

14-01-2005, 22:16

Ack. Ok. The problem is that the file in the scenario directory that it wishes to load is the MP version of the Conqest. Therefore Accelerated Production is on and a few other nasty things. Buggering things. *kicks the scenario*

Socrates

14-01-2005, 23:53

You're right, accelerated production is on by default and can't be changed ! [eek] Fuck it. Anyone thinks we should edit the biq so as to get normal production ? I'd like to hear Master akots on this... :D

As for my timezone, well it is obvious : GMT+1.

akots

15-01-2005, 00:18

Yes, you need to edit the scenario including AP and random seed and set human players to human and AI to AI. It is also required to set difficulty level for each player including the AI to the desired level though when loading the game it will still show up as "regent". This is a bug known for a few scenarios including this one. And there might be a problem to try to do this with any "hybrid" European version such as one that Krys is using. This might be due to the fact that scenario has been created with PTW editor and then converted into C3C editor. Also, it is required to start the random large map with similar barbarian settings before attmepting to start the scenario. Sometimes, the difficulty still will not set itself properly for Demi-God level, so it has to be edited manually, including AI bonuses, OCN and other things. If you need a biq, I can post one shortly after getting home. The one which Matrix has started has been on Emperor and was apparently more or less OK at least for Carthage. There is no way to change anything when the game is set up on the starting screen. And there is no known way to change the river defence bonus which is absent from all Conquests. [sad]

Sounds complicated but not much indeed.

Socrates

15-01-2005, 00:36

That's it, I'm stopping playing Civ3. :D [lol] Serious, anyone read akots's latest post and tell me I'm not dreaming. Did the developpers even once play this game properly set up ? If not, what a shame. A real shame, this is damn complicated. akots, if you have some time this weekend, could you contact me on MSN ? Just to set up everything properly... and maybe take your biq or something similar.

BTW, I knew this conquest wasn't built on the current C3C editor. It has too many "old" feelings. [crazyeye]

Stapel

15-01-2005, 01:36

quote:Originally posted by akots

quote:Originally posted by Stapel

Akots,
Do you propose that abandoning cities should be banned completely?

Exactly.

Hmmmmmmm

I can't understand why that would balance the game.
abandoning cities seems to be a valid tactic to me.

akots

15-01-2005, 01:45

quote:Originally posted by Stapel
... I can't understand why that would balance the game.
abandoning cities seems to be a valid tactic to me.

It is a valid tactics but the fun ... it is just gone from the game. There is a "retain culture on capture" feature in this scenario.

There are about 10 PBEMs with RoR conquests actively played at CFC and most of them agreed to limit abandoning the cities. I guess it comes from the first game won histographivally by Rome (Rubberjello) where I played Macedon. The main problem is the dead-end tech tree and building up the fortress which is impossible to crack. However, the fortress becomes the prison and game basically ends in stalemate.

Same goes for blocking coastal tiles. Justus can elaborate more on the matters.

I have played one game with abandoning cities and another without. The latter was more fun certainly.

akots

15-01-2005, 03:19

Here we go. Rome starts, then Macedon-Persia-Carthage which ends the turn. Please remember to start a random game on large map with desired barbarian activity level. noaipatrol fix is highly recommended for Carthage which is the last player.

Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif RoRome-Deity.zip (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/akots/20051153196_RoRome-Deity.zip)
57.88KB

Black_Waltz

15-01-2005, 06:01

Thankyou very much Akots. Much thanks. :) I had a go at editing the Biq myself but I think I missed a few bits and pieces. It's a tad annoying that you can't play the multiplayer Conquest how YOU want, though, without having to resort to editing files yourself.

What is this noaipatrol fix you mention? *goes to look it up*

Edit: Oh, and I do agree with Akots. Methinks it would be a better game if we were to say a large, collective 'no' to abandoning cities.

Stapel

15-01-2005, 10:59

OK, no abandoning of cities then.

This seems to be an advantage for Rome, and a disadvantage for Carthago, me thinks.

Socrates

15-01-2005, 14:13

NoAIPatrol fix ? The thingie about letting barbs go back to pseudo-PTW behaviour ? Can someone tell me how to do it carefully ? Does it involve editing a precious text file ? I bet I'll have to edit it back once the game is set up, right ?

I'll start a random game on a large map, with roaming barbs, if everyone agrees. OK on no abandoning any city (your own and the ones you capture (culture is kept)).

Black_Waltz

15-01-2005, 15:52

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100704

Info on the patch found there. There is a utility if you are uncomfortable in editing the file yourself.

Bah at Carthage being last. :-p

Socrates

15-01-2005, 16:37

I have one question : does everyone want to modify barbs' behaviour ? It was akots's opinion, saying it was better for Carthage, but I don't know the reason behind it. [???]

I'll create the game tomorrow, tonight I'm away. :)

Black_Waltz

15-01-2005, 16:50

I have no idea. I just respect Akots opinion because he helped us get up and running. :-p Otherwise I would have tried and have made a pigs ear out of it.

I am assuming, though, that more agressive barbarians on this scenario would make it a tad more intresting.

anarres

16-01-2005, 14:53

Behaviour is determined by a setting in the conquests.ini file every time you start C3C - but one thing is clear: we must all have the same settings or it will be unfair.

Socrates

16-01-2005, 15:21

quote:Originally posted by anarres

Behaviour is determined by a setting in the conquests.ini file every time you start C3C - but one thing is clear: we must all have the same settings or it will be unfair.

So I should have this file changed for some games, and unchanged for other ones ? And I'd have to make sure of its state each time I load C3C ? And I should have to restart C3C if I want to play a PBEM with the other setting ? If this is so, the answer is clear : I won't change anything, and live with C3C-like barbs.

The problem is if some people changed it once for all, and have different barbs in all the PBEMs I'm involved in. Has anyone already thought of this issue for the general concept of PBEM ?

Black_Waltz

16-01-2005, 17:43

Well I think if that is the case, if we all have the .ini file unmodified we will just leave it.

Bleh. All of this is just so complicated. :-p

Socrates

16-01-2005, 20:19

I'm starting the game ! For information, I first loaded a random game on a large map with roaming barbs (and normal AI agression). And then I set up the PBEM with the 4 of us, using the biq provided by akots. More info in the open thread I'll open now. :)

akots

17-01-2005, 03:48

Only the last player's settings (Carthage) matter since barbarian turn will be played on their computer. :)

Socrates

02-03-2005, 17:40

We're searching for someone to replace Black_Waltz in this game, since he disappeared weeks ago, and it's starting to be annoying.

So far, the 2nd turn isn't even over, so we're thinking of restarting the game. Read the thread named 'Mare Nostrum' in the open thread forum for details. The civ to be taken is Carthage in the Rise of Rome conquest (slightly modified by akots).

EDIT : [bump]

Darkness

04-03-2005, 14:04

Carthage is pretty much a lame duck in this scenario (from all the reviews at CFC at least), especially with the "no abandoning cities" rule...

But:
If you're restarting I'd be willing to take this.

2 cautions though:
- I haven't played any of the conquests (not even on low levels), so I'll probably play louzy!
- I just got a new computer, which is not connected to the internet yet (will take another 2-3 weeks), but I do have internet access at work. This will slow the game down for the first few weeks though... :(

akots

04-03-2005, 14:21

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

Carthage is pretty much a lame duck in this scenario (from all the reviews at CFC at least), especially with the "no abandoning cities" rule...

Carthage has great advantages and great UU, just need to use it. Rome can be dead in no time imho. Check out the other RoR thread here and Matrix's spoiler.

Darkness

04-03-2005, 15:42

quote:Originally posted by akots

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

Carthage is pretty much a lame duck in this scenario (from all the reviews at CFC at least), especially with the "no abandoning cities" rule...

Carthage has great advantages and great UU, just need to use it. Rome can be dead in no time imho. Check out the other RoR thread here and Matrix's spoiler.

You may be right. Just read the spoilers. Also, CFC has cleaned out the conquests subforum, so I can't find the other information anymore.

OK, akots, I'll retract the first line of my previous post... :)

Socrates

04-03-2005, 21:42

Well sure, Darkness. :) If Stapel and anarres are still interested in this game, we can restart it with you. Stapel said "ok", but anarres didn't step here yet.

Q: Why does the "no abandoning city" rule put Carthage in a worst position ? [hmm]

@ Darkness : maybe try a solo game with this scenario, to get the feel of it. I could wait a little before we start this one, and I assume Stapel and anarres too, considering their posting / no posting. [ponder] Tell us when you're ready. :) I'll be glad to face someone who is very strong in Civ3 but doesn't know (yet) the mysteries of the Mediterranean Sea. [nya] Or do you ? [groucho]

Stapel

05-03-2005, 09:05

quote:Originally posted by kryszcztovQ: Why does the "no abandoning city" rule put Carthage in a worst position ? [hmm]

The first thing you do as Carthago, is usually disbanding your cities, that are beseiged by Romans.

anarres

06-03-2005, 02:07

I can still play, although I am gutted at all that first-turn slog to do again...

Socrates

06-03-2005, 02:17

quote:Originally posted by Stapel

The first thing you do as Carthago, is usually disbanding your cities, that are beseiged by Romans.

That makes me think this scenario isn't set up nicely. You pick a civ and must abandon some of your cities to stay in the game ?? I find it hard to believe, I hope Darkness will be a tough challenge for my legions, and I hope I'll be the same to him. [mischief]

anarres, since BW was player #4, Stapel could send Darkness his turn 0, so that we don't have to replay the 1st turn. What d'ya think ?

anarres

06-03-2005, 02:24

Sounds like a good idea!

Stapel

06-03-2005, 10:00

Darkness' e-mail address would be helpful :)
Upload no work....

Stapel

06-03-2005, 10:02

quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov

quote:Originally posted by Stapel

The first thing you do as Carthago, is usually disbanding your cities, that are beseiged by Romans.

That makes me think this scenario isn't set up nicely. You pick a civ and must abandon some of your cities to stay in the game ?? I find it hard to believe, I hope Darkness will be a tough challenge for my legions, and I hope I'll be the same to him.
Well, I have no idea whtether the strategy is really a good one. I onlt know it is used a lot.