Author Topic: Replacing Rome  (Read 19471 times)

Re: Replacing Rome
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2013, 09:00:14 AM »
The remnants of Rome and the other tribes form separate kingdoms, and we vie for supremacy with war and diplomacy with these new kingdoms that have risen from the ashes of Rome.

We dominate the other kingdoms either though war, diplomacy, intimidation, or trade and rise as the  inheritors of the Roman legacy, like a Charlemagne or Holy Roman Empire.
Don't you think that this might be too similar to the current Civ's endgames (along with their problems)?

Otherwise, I'm not a big fan of both the Glory points (I didn't like Civ's scoring system either) and the capture of Rome.
Like you said Jon, the game is not about Rome. They are here as a superpower to deal with, but I'm not very comfortable with the endgame being directly linked to them.

From how I feel about the game without having played it, the victory should be attained when your barbarian tribe reaches the status of the "new Romain empire" (which will, in its turn, proper then wither). And what gave Rome its status? The military power, the vast territory, the culture, the "peace" that came with the roman occupation.

So to me, I feel like a suitable victory condition should be a mix of all of this.