Tides of Conquest Bronze Age campaign - First era completed at 1182 BC

[anderarcos11]

These are a bit strange results. Maybe it's better to play with the first advance or something that looks a bit like the achievements we had in the previous game. If not, I think it is better to set a historical scenario in Roman times and play from there. The truth is, the results that AI has given seem to me to make little sense. It could be to begin a scenario at the time of the beginning of Roman expansion through Italy, after the Hellenistic era. Anyway, what I don't like about these results is that there is no progression with what we played before, it changes everything radically.

[Nijis]

The game is actually set up to reflect the ebb and flow of historical empires over millennia, and does that fairly accurately imho. The problem is, however, that a single ruler's accomplishments tend to get wiped away like Ozymandias. The lifespan of an empire is, on average, about 200-500 years. Early rapid success (like Alexander's conquests) can mean a catastrophic fracturing within the same generation. Small tribes can rise up in a corner of the map and suddenly overrun a much more established realm. The "instability" rating is a good indication of a realm's fragility, but - at least in the Bronze Age - a ruler can at best slow it down. I also want the timescale to reflect the pace of historical campaigns, but that also has drawbacks - ie, some fronts, like the Roman/Persian frontier, might see centuries of battles with little territorial change, as fickle allies side with the winner than switch to the loser.

If people are interested I could set up a game in 500 BC, with Rome, Carthage, Athens, Persia, and all the classical kingdoms that we know and love, or the 300 BC Rise of Rome. I'd like to try a historical continuation game at some point, but probably 100 years is a more reasonable time-jump that won't utterly transform everything.

I might also change the domestic politics system so that players can have more control over the central dynamic, the race between reform and decay. This would take a while, however.

[anderarcos11]

I mean more at a playable level. I think the objective of any campaign is to have a certain progressiveness. If we are going to play in a totally different scenario, that has nothing to do with the results of my game, I prefer to play another historical era.

I suggest that we play a new historical scenario, at the time of the First Punic War, or the Pyrrhic Wars for example. We recruit new players and play a progressive campaign with a time limit. We can set some goals to establish a winner.

[Nijis]

That sounds good. I think what I want to do is come up with a multiplayer scoring system, but also make it so that everything which affects scores - ie, random diplomatic events - is dependent on player choices. Then I'll do a Rise of Rome-era campaign that lasts for four turns or so.

I want to keep the asymmetrical starts and the long-term historical pattern of empire rising and falling, so the score will primarily depend on changes since the game start position due to the player's performance and choices over a single generation. This will take a little while for me to implement and test, however.

In the meantime, thanks to everyone who participated, and look forward to inviting back those interested in a little while!

[Karvon]

I'd second the idea of starting with the time of Pyrrhus.

Karvon

[Indibil]

I'd second the idea of starting with the time of Pyrrhus.

Karvon

I agree