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

[theBastard]

I agree with Sassanids. Kabanellas, you did great work, spent much time on map, have your gameplay - but what about to cut off map a little?

the fall of Rome was more about western part, the barbarian invasion was more about western part. so what about to kick off east part (maybe all Asia, maybe just have Asiana there)???

you will have more space for rest of map, the Constantinople will be still here (for showing dividing of Empire) and there will be no problems with Barbarians - all will have similar start position.

about numbers - I like them as they are. and they are Romans

[Gillipig]

Looks nice but it's very similar to Imperium Romanum in theme! I know this is about the fall of the Roman Empire and that's a difference but I'd like to see some more uniqueness! The area covered is the same as Imp. Rom. so it's easy for it to look like a remake of that map!

Edit: Not that it needs a remake!

[Kabanellas]

I would totally disagree with that.
Though it covers the Roman Empire era - despite being in an obviously diferent period from Qwert's Imperium Romanum - the gameplay is absolutely different here. Actually any similarity would be sheer coincidence.

[Gillipig]

I would totally disagree with that.
Though it covers the Roman Empire era - despite being in an obviously diferent period from Qwert's Imperium Romanum - the gameplay is absolutely different here. Actually any similarity would be cheer coincidence.

Maybe it's just me! I've played too many games on that map to be objective! I still see Imp. Rom. everywhere and that's probably because the area covered is as good as identical to that map! I'm not saying it's a bad map I'll probably play a lot on it but to me..... Ok I'll tell you what I see; I see the old Imperium Romanum map laying behind this map and this new map with different colours being pasted over it but not enough to still see the old map! I'm not saying you've done that but simply describing how it looks through my eyes !

[natty dread]

I agree that this map is unique and different enough from IR. I'll have to take a closer look at the gameplay when I get the chance... too bad I know so little about Rome :/

[Rodion]

I would totally disagree with that.
Though it covers the Roman Empire era - despite being in an obviously diferent period from Qwert's Imperium Romanum - the gameplay is absolutely different here. Actually any similarity would be cheer coincidence.

Maybe it's just me! I've played too many games on that map to be objective! I still see Imp. Rom. everywhere and that's probably because the area covered is as good as identical to that map! I'm not saying it's a bad map I'll probably play a lot on it but to me..... Ok I'll tell you what I see; I see the old Imperium Romanum map laying behind this map and this new map with different colours being pasted over it but not enough to still see the old map! I'm not saying you've done that but simply describing how it looks through my eyes !

Do you feel the same when comparing maps such as First Nations North America and North America?

[Gillipig]

I would totally disagree with that.
Though it covers the Roman Empire era - despite being in an obviously diferent period from Qwert's Imperium Romanum - the gameplay is absolutely different here. Actually any similarity would be cheer coincidence.

Maybe it's just me! I've played too many games on that map to be objective! I still see Imp. Rom. everywhere and that's probably because the area covered is as good as identical to that map! I'm not saying it's a bad map I'll probably play a lot on it but to me..... Ok I'll tell you what I see; I see the old Imperium Romanum map laying behind this map and this new map with different colours being pasted over it but not enough to still see the old map! I'm not saying you've done that but simply describing how it looks through my eyes !

Do you feel the same when comparing maps such as First Nations North America and North America?

Nope which is why it's probably just me ! Half of my games have been on Imp. Rom. so it's a little special map for me and probably why I see it the way I see it! Kabanellas how long do you think it'll take before we can try this one on beta? I'll organize a tournament focusing on the Roman Empire in the near future and the more maps available on that theme the better!

[Kabanellas]

Thank you Gillipig!

This is my dream project to be honest .

I meant to make a Roman Empire map even before I started the Third Crusade. I strongly believe in this project and I really feel that we have a great gameplay here, as we stand. Some repairs were made by Marshall concerning the readability (and comprehensiveness) of the legend.

So what is missing now, for this project to move on, is some spare time and probably some helping ideas - because I'm having serious difficulties in changing the lay-out, or finding a better one (i can honestly say that this is the first time that I'm feeling like this on a map I've made)

[Riskismy]

I haven't followed the thread, so sorry if I'm having you repeat yourself (feel free to point to a page number!), but the layout seems alright to me. Took me some 10 or 15 minutes to make heads and tails of it, but that certainly not unique to this map. Lots of other maps are equally difficult to understand.

Just fit the government explanations (above) into the main map and you're good to go as far as I'm concerned.

Looks like very engaging gameplay - would love to play this map!

[Gillipig]

When it comes to number of territs I'm not sure that I think it should be 80-90 as it is now! Bigger is not always better and a lot of these territs could be molded with an adjacent territ without destroying gameplay or mess up with borders! I think around 60 territs would be better! There's a general trend to make really large maps nowadays that fits 8 players well but gets too big for 3-5 players!

Edit: I now see that there are more than 100 territs ! My 3-5 player type of map suggestion isn't gonna be reality then I guess!
What are your plans with the barbarian tribes? Are you gonna keep the white bubbles?

Further edit: I think the legions should be placed differently! They're bundled up together and not spread out evenly! GVI borders 3 legions while spain and Greece have no legions!

Even more edition : I also think there are too many win condition and it's too easy to fulfill them! I would suggest limit it too 1 win condition and make it harder! Although freestyler's would love to have it this way !

[Kabanellas]

Hi!

When it comes to number of territs I'm not sure that I think it should be 80-90 as it is now! Bigger is not always better and a lot of these territs could be molded with an adjacent territ without destroying gameplay or mess up with borders! I think around 60 territs would be better! There's a general trend to make really large maps nowadays that fits 8 players well but gets too big for 3-5 players!

Edit: I now see that there are more than 100 territs ! My 3-5 player type of map suggestion isn't gonna be reality then I guess!
What are your plans with the barbarian tribes? Are you gonna keep the white bubbles?

A lot of those regions will start neutral:

Regions with Legions on them, Barbarian Outposts and ALL administrative seats in the Roman government.

Further edit: I think the legions should be placed differently! They're bundled up together and not spread out evenly! GVI borders 3 legions while spain and Greece have no legions!

They were carefully placed, at the moment.. ... Legions have a very good feature which is to reach all regions on the dioceses their in. I probably didn't' want to give that extra feature to the Iberian regions. But that could change.....

Even more edition : I also think there are too many win condition and it's too easy to fulfill them! I would suggest limit it too 1 win condition and make it harder! Although freestyler's would love to have it this way !

You have to fulfil ALL those conditions: one Imperial Capital + Both Imperial Seats + any 4 Barbarian Tribes

[Victor Sullivan]

MarshalNey tells me the main issue here is clarity - and I can see why! I think Andy spoke with a good deal of wisdom when he said:

I've wanted a Roman Empire map, but the extra additions to the gameplay probably would make this a map that I'd avoid as it stands, even though it is a pretty-sight and theme.


--Andy

Firstly, despite all of the text, you failed to explain what a Diocesis and Praefectura are. While I admit one could infer by reading the text in the "Roman Government" inset or by referencing the image you have in your first post, it is not abundantly clear. That being said, everything else makes sense, and unfortunately, is as concise as I see feasible. Graphically, if you didn't use all caps it may look less daunting, but at the same time, I doubt it will do too much.

Ultimately, my thoughts boil down to two philosophies: Those that prefer more complex maps like this one probably have the endurance to read through everything, and/or you need to trim down some gameplay elements to make the map more friendly to the larger fraction of the community.

-Sully

[Nola_Lifer]

MarshalNey tells me the main issue here is clarity - and I can see why! I think Andy spoke with a good deal of wisdom when he said:

I've wanted a Roman Empire map, but the extra additions to the gameplay probably would make this a map that I'd avoid as it stands, even though it is a pretty-sight and theme.


--Andy

Firstly, despite all of the text, you failed to explain what a Diocesis and Praefectura are. While I admit one could infer by reading the text in the "Roman Government" inset or by referencing the image you have in your first post, it is not abundantly clear. That being said, everything else makes sense, and unfortunately, is as concise as I see feasible. Graphically, if you didn't use all caps it may look less daunting, but at the same time, I doubt it will do too much.

Ultimately, my thoughts boil down to two philosophies: Those that prefer more complex maps like this one probably have the endurance to read through everything, and/or you need to trim down some gameplay elements to make the map more friendly to the larger fraction of the community.

-Sully

I agree and I don't agree with this post. I think, once you've glanced at the map a few times, you'll be able to understand Dioceses and Praefectuarae are, if you look at the chart in the top right. The one area I agree in is too much gameplay. Making it more simpler would help. I'd say get rid of the barbarians since it causes an imbalance in the game and it will allow more space for explanations. I think the problem is with the chart in the top right corner is you have the gold and red text which makes everything blend into each other. This causes items to be missed easily. So I'd get rid of the barbarians. Take out the explanations in the top right legend and put them all at the bottom of the map with the other explanations.

[theBastard]

hm, Kab I bet that you spent much time when you thought about gameplay and when you drawn map. the map name is Conquer Rome, I have one idea and question: what about to do possibility to create also new "Barbarians" kingdoms.

the Dioceses represent current Roman Empire - when you secure the Rome. and there could be also new Barbarian kingdoms.

the Roman Goverment seems too complicated (for me only?)

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.

[Victor Sullivan]

For me, it's not so much that it's complicated (it makes perfect sense), it's more that it's a lot to juggle in your mind as you're taking your turn. Figuring out the best routes of attack and what strategies to use could take a very long time. But hey, I know there are people out there ready for this kind of challenge, so, who knows?

-Sully

[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