Conquer Rome (The Fall of the Roman Empire) [Quenched]

[Kabanellas]

here is also question - will be all regions divided between players or each player will start in one Barbarian tribe. because I still see problems with Sassanids, they will have advantage against other Barbarians if Empire´s regions will start as neutral.

those will be starting points but all other regions will be divided by players. Except: Regions with Legions on them, Barbarian Outposts and ALL administrative seats in the Roman government


..as for taking out the barbarians, well I can't see a conquer Rome (or fall of Rome) map without the barbarians....

This might help, I believe it will be all much clearer now. I even painted the seats according to the regions colours:

Click image to enlarge.

[Kabanellas]

If you dismount all that 'apparatus' you'll end up seeing that the bonus structure is pretty simple:

- you don't get juicy bonus without owning seats in the R.G. (Roman Government)

- Diocesis - you'll get 1 army for each 2 regions of the corresponding seat colour (Vicarious and its Diocesis)

-Praefectura - you'll get 1 army for each 4 regions of the corresponding family colour (praetor and its Praefectura)

this is the main bonus structure

[Nola_Lifer]

here is also question - will be all regions divided between players or each player will start in one Barbarian tribe. because I still see problems with Sassanids, they will have advantage against other Barbarians if Empire´s regions will start as neutral.

those will be starting points but all other regions will be divided by players. Except: Regions with Legions on them, Barbarian Outposts and ALL administrative seats in the Roman government


..as for taking out the barbarians, well I can't see a conquer Rome (or fall of Rome) map without the barbarians....

This might help, I believe it will be all much clearer now. I even painted the seats according to the regions colours:

I still think you got two map ideas here. Take out the Fall of Rome part and the barbarians and just call it Conquer Rome. Then make another badass map and call it The Fall of Rome.

[Kabanellas]

and now without all the bla,bla,bla .... actually this is simple enough to make a diagram.

Click image to enlarge.

[theBastard]

now is goverment clear also for me

- are legions divided by historic accuracy? is possible to change positions of some of them? some of them could assault Barbarian outposts, some of them not. some of them could assault only 3 regions some of them more...

- are Barbarian outpost necessary?

- I agree with Nola, you have two different ideas in one map. Conquer Rome is good for now, but Fall of Rome needs new map or a little change something in this map. (make there possibility of establish Barbarian kingdoms as I mentioned before...)

[Kabanellas]

thanks for the feedback!

now is goverment clear also for me

- are legions divided by historic accuracy? is possible to change positions of some of them? some of them could assault Barbarian outposts, some of them not. some of them could assault only 3 regions some of them more...

They're placement is not historically accurate, and that's for reason of gameplay. As for their attributes, Legions are able to assault distant regions on the Dioceses they're in. They can also bombard barbarian outposts that directly threaten their Dioceses.

- are Barbarian outpost necessary?

yes, for gameplay reasons. With the outposts you won't be able to conquer a barbarian settlement from the imperial seat without sending troops there to later capture the outpost. Making the objectives harder to accomplish. On the other hand, on fog games, you won't be able to see all the barbarian settlement forces (base tribe+outpost) without owning the Imperial Seat and the Legion that bombards that outpost.

- I agree with Nola, you have two different ideas in one map. Conquer Rome is good for now, but Fall of Rome needs new map or a little change something in this map. (make there possibility of establish Barbarian kingdoms as I mentioned before...)

That would be another map. A map based on the 5th century and the collapse of the western empire.

Not this one. We're dealing with the 3rd and 4th centuries. And those are the last 2 hundred years of the Roman Empire. We're focusing on the political context (administrative organization and the West/Eastern Empire division), and also the barbarian threat, in the late Roman Empire

Click image to enlarge.

[Kabanellas]

with even less letters:

Click image to enlarge.

[theBastard]

thanks for the feedback!

I like this map (also Third Crusade, Napoleonic Europe ), so I can help how much I can...

They're placement is not historically accurate, and that's for reason of gameplay. As for their attributes, Legions are able to assault distant regions on the Dioceses they're in. They can also bombard barbarian outposts that directly threaten their Dioceses.

hm, then I think each Diocese could have legion. why small Dacia has legion and larger Macedonia or Pontica or Hispanae not?

yes, for gameplay reasons. With the outposts you won't be able to conquer a barbarian settlement from the imperial seat without sending troops there to later capture the outpost. Making the objectives harder to accomplish. On the other hand, on fog games, you won't be able to see all the barbarian settlement forces (base tribe+outpost) without owning the Imperial Seat and the Legion that bombards that outpost.

I understand, but maybe Barbarians have too much importance, because...

That would be another map. A map based on the 5th century and the collapse of the western empire.

Not this one. We're dealing with the 3rd and 4th centuries. And those are the last 2 hundred years of the Roman Empire. We're focusing on the political context (administrative organization and the West/Eastern Empire division), and also the barbarian threat, in the late Roman Empire

...yes, barbarians did attacks against Rome but only Visigoths captured area from Roman Empire for longer time.
this map is great for last canturies of Roman Empire - political context (administrative organization and the West/Eastern Empire division).

there should be next great map about Fall of Rome (Barbarian Invasion). and I am looking forward on it

[Victor Sullivan]

While Nola_Lifer brought up the argument that you have two map ideas going here, Kabanellas, I'll agree with you on this. I think the gameplay meshes well, and, as you explained, this isn't about the fall in the 5th century, more the political context of the 3rd and 4th.

One thing I think you need to drop is the abbreviation "A" for "ARMIES". It caused me much confusion when looking at the "EMPEROR BONUS" legend. I think it's safe to drop the A's altogether.

This is very, very nice. I'll admit, before MarshalNey mentioned this map in HCS, I had shied away from commenting due to lack of interest in playing the map, but I've since changed my mind. I'm excited to play, and I have to say the recent updates have helped.

-Sully

[MarshalNey]

The Historical Cartographers' Society steps in! Thanks guys, and good to see this map still kicking

The last two updates in particular were a big step in the right direction I think. There are more than a few places that could use some simple tweaks for even better clarity, but I'm not really concerned. The color-coding in the Government section was big boost.

As for the gameplay itself... Nola's comment about this being 2 maps ideas struck a chord with me. Obviously it could turn out to be a nice fusion (sort of 2 'subplots' in one big 'meta-plot') but I'm going to think about it for little while, hopefully you can as well... I know it's not easy to question concept at this point, but I think it was a valid concern. You're modeling a broad historical context (which you've done well in other maps btw) but the map is very, very heavy on the Roman side of governance and very, very light on the Barbarian side. Yet in terms of steady bonuses and starting positions the Barbarians have precedence. It makes for a bit of a schizophrenic role for a player, as they seem to be both Roman Defender and Barbarian Conqueror. In 3rd Crusade or Napoleonic Europe, the role was clear- as leader of one of the major participating kingdoms/nations. It could be argued that the case with the Barbarians vs. Romans wasn't so clear cut, as the Barbarians were often hired out by the Romans to fight other Barbarians,; ultimately the Visigoths were Latinized Barbarians who settled on Roman lands in return for their fealty to Rome (temporary as it turns out thanks to some foolish governors). But I doubt many players are going to read that much into the setup. This is sort of important because these sort of maps offer the feel of taking on a historical role, and that's their main draw (besides attracting the die-hard tactical players who flock to complex gameplay like a moth to flame).

Don't panic, btw, I'm not going to bounce this back to the Drafting Room, I just want to ask myself some questions and see where it takes me before moving forward.

I guess one way that I'm going with this is to ask- why did you choose the sort of gameplay elements that you did to model the Government and the Barbarians? In 3rd Crusade and Napoleonic Europe for instance, you chose to model varying aspects through bonuses and combinations to get bonuses. In Conquer Rome, you're using a number of special 1-way attacks and bombardments plus bonus combinations. It makes the gameplay more... well, Byzantine (forgive me). But does it contribute to the overarching concept in a way that a simpler bonus modeling system can't?

Anyway, I'll stop my musing for now. I apologize for the length of the post

-- Marshal Ney

[Kabanellas]

Thanks guys for all your input and feedback!

As I’ve said before I’m totally confident on what this map represents in terms of game-play. And I can’t possibly dissociate the barbarians and the important role they meant in terms of bordering relations with the Empire and their growingly assimilation that took place throughout the last couple of centuries of the Western Empire.

One thing I wanted to avoid here (mainly because we’re dealing with a different age of the empire) was the ‘monolithic’ aspect of Qwert’s Imperium Romanum. That just wouldn’t make sense when you are focusing on the late 3rd and 4th centuries. With a big plus – it will add extra value to the game-play and its victory conditions.

The fact that you can play both roles will always happen in every historical map. It happens in the Third crusade for instances, where you can start with both London and Cairo. Two opposite factions that are both starting points.

As for your last question Marshal…

I always expect to go a little step further in terms of game-play. I try to do it in every map as I did in a more affirmative way with King’s Court. Conquer Rome ends up to be the natural direction – a mix between certain aspects of King’s Court style of game-play and strategic dynamics blended with all my other previous maps.

But don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against straight-plain-risk-style maps. In fact I love them – but there are plenty around.

[Nola_Lifer]

Are they bumping up the number of players in each game to 12? Ever though about making enough Barbarians to match the 12 or are you just stick with 8?

[Kabanellas]

Are they bumping up the number of players in each game to 12? Ever though about making enough Barbarians to match the 12 or are you just stick with 8?

I think that's an innovation that comes along with super-sized maps... I'm keeping the traditional 8 here.


P.S. - I'm going on vacation for the next 9 days - and probably not able to connect.

[Commander9]

Any reason why this still hasn't been moved?

[Victor Sullivan]

Well, I believe ian is on vacation and Marshal and TaCktiX are out for whatever reason. I've seen isaiah around here, so he might be an interim GP carto, but Idk.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

Well, I believe ian is on vacation and Marshal and TaCktiX are out for whatever reason. I've seen isaiah around here, so he might be an interim GP carto, but Idk.

-Sully

Check, check, and check! Yep I've been doing both GP and GFX lately, so please have patience as I have to read through a lot of posts to get an idea of the game play and such. I'll get around to making comments probably this weekend

[Nola_Lifer]

Kab is out of town too

[Kabanellas]

I'm back ... and with a nice tan

[Nola_Lifer]

I'm back ... and with a nice tan

Your Portuguese. I thought you were already tan.

[Kabanellas]

you'd be amazed by the quantity of blond guys around here

[ballong]

lombards were called longobards.. lombards only became their new name many hundreds of years after the fall of the western empire when they had mixed with the italians.

[Kabanellas]

never knew that ... strangely every map I've seen on history books and on the internet refer to them as being the Lombards (thought the Latim form is Langobardi - quite close to what you say)

[ballong]

yes, i guess langobardi would work since the map is from a latin perspective.. it means longbeards of course.. probably another way of saying they were people of Odin.

[Kabanellas]

on the other hand all barbarian names are in the English form on map... but if the majority prefer I can change them to the Latin form

[ballong]

well.. almost everything in your map is latin - not english (and i think it´s ok since the map is about the roman empire)
also.. the english names you use were created much later - the english words are usually a modification of the latin names hundreds of years later..
it would be more consistant to use the latin names for the "barbarians" since everything else is in latin.
..just my humble opinion of course, but consistency and historicity should be kept whenever possible imo.

there are too many whatever-goes-dontcare-about history-toomuch at cc and yours is not one of them so.. keep it real!