Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: to land bridge or not to land bridge

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default to land bridge or not to land bridge

    Basically, i like the idea of land bridges (on Sicily and Asia Minor) as they allow me and the AIs to expand more agressively. However, in my experience playing as GCS, after taking Syracuse, I had to deal with hordes of Roman invasions on a regular basis. Again, I didn't see that as a problem as my towers would usually minch them up while my troops relax at the city center waiting for the final butchering of what remain of the invasion force. What saddens me is that Rome, so persistent and perseverent in reclaiming Syracuse, had totally neglected their northern territory to the roaming Gauls.
    So I quit the game, deleted the XGM folder (after I keep the saves, of course), and reinstalled the game. This time without ticking the land bridge option box. I then load my old saves and VOILA, the game's back! Only this time without land bridges.
    Thought that it might be useful for you guys.

  2. #2

    Default Re: to land bridge or not to land bridge

    wow thats quite useful. ill keep note of it.

  3. #3
    Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,925

    Default Re: to land bridge or not to land bridge

    Of course they'll try and reclaim their old territory. Thats the AI bias against the player, any AI faction will do it... Syracuse should be a foothold to complete an invasion of S. Italy and kill of Rome, not just to sit there and have it.

    Actually, I might prefer a game where Gaul does well, since they always get murdered by Rome, Germania and Iberia.



  4. #4

    Default Re: to land bridge or not to land bridge

    Yes, the towers at the cities with epic walls are quite insane. I even took them down a notch in XC. I had a Pergamum campaign where after I took Antioch I held off many Seleucid assaults using little more than the wall towers' ballistae.

    Scutarii,
    I'll have to post a picture of my latest campaign. Gaul (which is united) and Thrace are massive, taking Germania (by Gaul and Thrace) and Macedon (by just Thrace) down in the process; Rome hasn't made it out of Italy and Sicily.

    Expand your borders, a mod based on XGM 5.

  5. #5
    Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,925

    Default Re: to land bridge or not to land bridge

    Must... see...

    I swear I have never had an AI Gaul do well. Thrace has done pretty well since Dime removed the Indie Celt cities west of them, and them or Germania tend to dominate Central Europe before the coming of Rome... Than its sometimes a tossup.



  6. #6

    Default Re: to land bridge or not to land bridge

    I am currently playing just such a game. Gaul and Thrace have beat Germany to the point it has horded. At least I think they have. There is no red on the map but they still have a diplomacy slot. The Iberians beat the Carthaginians back to just the Baleric isles and Corsica. Rome never got past Mediolanum or Patavium. Now I, GCS, have Sicily and now Tarentum. I have had to stop and restore my ally Carthage, in North Africa. Gaul and Thrace who divide Europe have just both attacked me. Things are about to heat up. Also Scythia has destroyed Parthia, Pontus and Armenia and in fact have pushed their border to Sinope and Ancyra. Very different game than usual.
    Last edited by Sarpedon99; November 16, 2008 at 07:33 PM.

  7. #7
    Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,925

    Default Re: to land bridge or not to land bridge

    Thats some cool AI progression... You should post a picture in the empires thread, would be good to get a visual on that..



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •