Future scenario ideas

[Boomer]

I'm sure you devs and beta testers have already discussed this privately, but let me air out some ideas for the unwashed masses to ponder.

I love the included scenarios, especially the 1st civil war between the Populares and Optimates, and the Mithradatic war was a welcome surprise. But the possibilities for small/midsize scenarios are limitless (I think the idea of a late Republic grand campaign is still a winner, though).

Here's some possible pivotal moments in Roman history that I think would make for some great game play in expansions down the road.

1. The collapse of the second Triumvirate and the war between Octavian, Lepidus, and Antony.

2. Marcus Aurelius' Germanic campaigns in the Marcomannic wars.

3. The death of the Tetrarchy and the rise of Constantine.

4. The Gothic invasions and the fall of the western empire.

Those are just some of the scenarios that I would love to see. Anyone else have any periods they're hoping to try their hand at?

[koningtiger]

I would like to see a 300 BC scenario with the Diadochi Wars after Ipsus. It fits in the period of the first expansion Birth of Rome, and its equal or most interesting than other conflicts of the period (including 1st Punic War). Another plus can be its perfect for a multiplayer game with 3-5 good sized sides. No other roman period conflict can put so many sides in play.

[cwegsche]

When we are talking about the Diadochi Wars, maybe going evan a step back and take the Alexander campaign, although the map would need some enlargement in the east, I think also for the Diadochi wars).

[DON]

A good starting point for research on scenarios would be the boardgame Imperium Romanum II, a strategic level game on the Roman Empire, that had 35 scenarios from the time of Caesar to Justinian.

[El Nino]

One thing is sure : on the next expansion, AJE players could take the command of a Greek faction on two different scenarii... ouet:

[yellow ribbon]

One thing is sure : on the next expansion, AJE players could take the command of a Greek faction on two different scenarii... ouet:

yeah, that leaves us only roughly what 400-600 years time span...
give us a hint, pants or skirts?

[El Nino]

The next extension is between -312 and -236...

[Solemnace]

One thing is sure : on the next expansion, AJE players could take the command of a Greek faction on two different scenarii... ouet:

Isn't the next expansion Birth of Rome or Something so Pyrrhus and the Pyrrhic war is obvious. The Second I have no clue about. Can you tell me?

[yellow ribbon]

The next extension is between -312 and -236...

they will throw etruscan vases then... birth of Rome... oh, that will be long time until i may behave like a visigoth

[beuckelssen]

The Punic Wars. I want to defeat Rome with Carthage.

[Laruku]

During that timeframe (312 BCE-236 BCE):
* 3rd Sammnite War 298 BCE-290 BCE --> fight for the control of Italy: 9*12=108 turns Some Greeks lurking around the South (Tarento, basically)
* Pyrrhic War 280 BCE-275BCE --> fight against Pyrrhus, king of Epirus (Greek, but from nowadays Albania): 6*12=72 turns
* 1st Punic War 264 BCE-241 BCE --> fight against Hiero of Syracuse (Greek, from Sicily) and the Carthaginians 24*12 = 480 turns. This is probably too much, so it should be divided at least in two

So, in all the scenarios or campaigns Greeks can play a role.

Btw, here you have some timelines for you to enjoy:

http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/romrepfs.gif
http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/romempfs.gif

[Bodhis]

Argh hopefully this game sales reasonably well! So many scenarios I want to play

[Florent]

"During that timeframe (312 BCE-236 BCE):
* 3rd Sammnite War 298 BCE-290 BCE --> fight for the control of Italy: 9*12=108 turns Some Greeks lurking around the South (Tarento, basically)
* Pyrrhic War 280 BCE-275BCE --> fight against Pyrrhus, king of Epirus (Greek, but from nowadays Albania): 6*12=72 turns
* 1st Punic War 264 BCE-241 BCE --> fight against Hiero of Syracuse (Greek, from Sicily) and the Carthaginians 24*12 = 480 turns. This is probably too much, so it should be divided at least in two"

I think you can add another Samnite War as well as the Truceless War in 240-238. Carthage fighting against her mercenaries, you will understand WHY Hannibal was never betrayed by his mercenaries.
"These hard bitten soldiers of fortune had learned and
accepted this fact - you just don't cross a Barca."

[Florent]

Here is Dan Fournie complete introduction to his article about this WAR.

" Have you ever wondered how it was that Hannibal led an
army of mercenaries for two decades and never faced a
serious rebellion or major desertion? His army was often
hungry, always pushed hard by the Romans and usually
faced appalling conditions. Yet his soldiers of fortune
invariably remained loyal. Many historians credit this
phenomena to Hannibal's charismatic leadership and his
concern for the welfare of his men. But there was a darker
side. Hannibal's army had been created and trained by his
father, Hamilcar Barca. And every mercenary in that army
soon learned the tales of the Truceless War. The long
shadow of Hamilcar's ruthless suppression of that rebellion
lingered in the collective memory of Hannibal's army.
These hard bitten soldiers of fortune had learned and
accepted this fact - you just don't cross a Barca"

[FENRIS]

The Punic Wars. I want to defeat Rome with Carthage.

HA HA HA ! You'll find me in the road with my legions ouet:

[Kensai]

Let the Proconsuls speak their mind!

[Boomer]

Just make sure that Pyrrhus gets the reckless trait. It's the only way for him to rack up all those 'victories' against the legions.

[RPHKUSA]

Yup, I'm in love with Ageod. Birth if Rome is going to be awesome! As for what I'd like to see- the wars in Judea with the Jewish revolts, and the Sassanid and Armenian wars. Alexander was conquering Asia during Rome's rise...

Scenario idea: Phyrrus' conquest of Sicily in 278 B.C. 5-8 Turns. Four sides: Agrigentum, Syracuse, Phyrrus, Carthage.

Not sure of the game features... I know AACW could have the British get involved in the war. Could similar triggers apply here for Syracuse and Agrigentum to be at war at the scenario start, then have Carthage enter, then have Phyrrus' troops land? I picture a scenario where Agrigentum struggles in the first turn, Syracuse struggles on two fronts against Agrigentum and Carthage on the second turn, and Phyrrus has to mop it all up the rest of the scenario.

[Laruku]

"During that timeframe (312 BCE-236 BCE):
* 3rd Sammnite War 298 BCE-290 BCE --> fight for the control of Italy: 9*12=108 turns Some Greeks lurking around the South (Tarento, basically)
* Pyrrhic War 280 BCE-275BCE --> fight against Pyrrhus, king of Epirus (Greek, but from nowadays Albania): 6*12=72 turns
* 1st Punic War 264 BCE-241 BCE --> fight against Hiero of Syracuse (Greek, from Sicily) and the Carthaginians 24*12 = 480 turns. This is probably too much, so it should be divided at least in two"

I think you can add another Samnite War as well as the Truceless War in 240-238. Carthage fighting against her mercenaries, you will understand WHY Hannibal was never betrayed by his mercenaries.
"These hard bitten soldiers of fortune had learned and
accepted this fact - you just don't cross a Barca."

Yes, of course. I have just mentioned the obvious Grand Campaigns. Then you can add dozens of scenarios, like that one. I remembered some rebellion from mercenaries in Sardinia, taking control of the island. Another scenario might be the expansion of Syracuse in Sicily, the origin of this 1st Punic War.

[dpt24]

The two area's I'm most interested in are the Gallic Wars and the Barbarian invasions. For both Scenario's and Campaigns.

[Laruku]

Here is Dan Fournie complete introduction to his article about this WAR.

" Have you ever wondered how it was that Hannibal led an
army of mercenaries for two decades and never faced a
serious rebellion or major desertion? His army was often
hungry, always pushed hard by the Romans and usually
faced appalling conditions. Yet his soldiers of fortune
invariably remained loyal. Many historians credit this
phenomena to Hannibal's charismatic leadership and his
concern for the welfare of his men. But there was a darker
side. Hannibal's army had been created and trained by his
father, Hamilcar Barca. And every mercenary in that army
soon learned the tales of the Truceless War. The long
shadow of Hamilcar's ruthless suppression of that rebellion
lingered in the collective memory of Hannibal's army.
These hard bitten soldiers of fortune had learned and
accepted this fact - you just don't cross a Barca"

There is something else. The Iberian people had the "devotio", an oath to their leader, almost a religious one. Then we have the Gallii, from north Italy, who hated Romans to death. And last, but not least, some recent conquered people in Italy, like the Greeks, who were not so happy with Romans. Mix everything together and that's your answer. Furthermore, there was a treason from the Numidian leader, Masinissa, that was determinant in the decisive Battle of Zama.

[turenne08]

You could also have Alexander I of Epirus invading southern Italy. He didn't fight against rome but against Samnites and Lucanians.

Of his battles with the Italian troops he said he wage war on men while his nephew fought against women.

[Agesilaus]

I would love to see the Cleomenean War, but I'm afraid the map would be inadequate because of the lack of provinces. Same with the conflict with Nabis. Maybe we could get the conflict between Rome and the Achaean League, though.

Romans have always seemed like second rate ancients to me, so you'll forgive me if I dream about scenarios involving greeks. Wake me up when Ageod makes a Peloponnesian War game.

[Boomer]

One of the things I'm sure is frustrating for the devs is the idea of betrayals and allegiance swapping that happened so often in the ancient world. With modern conflicts it wasn't so hard to model Benedict Arnold's defection in WIA, he was after all just one man. But in war in the ancient world, more often than not when a general or leader defected, his army went with him to the other side. Inserting a rogue leader like say Odenathus of Palmyra would be a nightmare to consider in this kind of game. After all, do you model the portraits, do up all the code to insert infantry and cavalry units, and then attach AI files and triggers, only to have them removed from the chest board a few turns later in order to remain close to historical accuracy? That would be a huge amount of work for very little actual game play use.

And what of assassinations and usurper rebellions? Are these things even capable of being put into a game using the AGE engine? Without event triggers at specific times, it seems that it would be very hard to do. So much would have to be hard coded that deviating with any kind of procedural elements would be nearly impossible. I guess that's probably why creating a VERY long turn grand campaign would be difficult with so many moving parts and on a scale vastly larger than say WIA or AACW.

The map, artwork and strategic logistics of the engine would certainly support most of the above ideas, but implementing the code, scripts, and triggers must be a freaking insane thing to even consider. But hey, that's why people like me play games rather than make them.

[dpt24]

Revolution Under Siege and Rise Of Prussia had some of those types of things in them, especially rebellions in RUS. Rise of Prussia had the Saxony event, so it can be done.

[Leibst]

Argh hopefully this game sales reasonably well! So many scenarios I want to play

For anyone who likes history and wargames, imo 20€ for this quality of game what better can you find in the market?

[Gaius Iulius Caesar]

I would love to find a [color="#DAA520"]"Grand Campaign"[/color], starting at the founding of Rome to the very end. I know this would be a nearly endless amout of turns, but how cares! [color="#00FFFF"]I just want to take my legions with me and all my good and bad decisions. Which is not possible, if it is splitted in different scenarios.[/color]

[Narwhal]

That would be a complete sandox, GIC. Paradox did this in a fairly okish way, if you are into Real TIme.

[Boomer]

I would love to find a [color="#DAA520"]"Grand Campaign"[/color], starting at the founding of Rome to the very end. I know this would be a nearly endless amout of turns, but how cares! [color="#00FFFF"]I just want to take my legions with me and all my good and bad decisions. Which is not possible, if it is splitted in different scenarios.[/color]

To the end of what, the fall of the western empire? Holy god, that would be like the longest turn scenario of any turn based game EVER. Even at one month turns it would have to be at least several hundred turns long.

However, a grand campaign that was broken up into early/mid/late timelines might work. Have say a GC scenario that covers the time from the birth of Rome to the unification of Italy, another that covers the expansion period and the war with Carthage, and finally one that covers the imperial period to the barbarian invasions during the 3rd century. I don't see how it would work any other way. A 700+ year long grand campaign would take months to finish, if it didn't break down immediately due to conflicting scripts or random bugs.

[anibal barca]

the punic wars,mercenary war with carthage.