Rome Rapid Expansion

GGrayson said:

I don't know. I don't ever remember getting nuked in MP, but that's sounds like the kind of game that I would block out of my mind

but if that's the case, then we def need to play more, sounds like it would be a good matchup. I love games where both players make it to the modern and it's a crazy fight to the finish. Those games are few and far between.

add me, and we'll play next time we're both free

Click to expand...

Kadazzle said:

I haven't played Civ in a long time (it's been too long.. weeks maybe), but I do think the Spanish are better than the Romans for teching and expansion, just like how the Chinese are better than the Romans. The Romans are a civ where I like to bunker-down and have 4-5 good powerhouse cities, while I have around 8+ unit spamming cities. This is good because I usually can win the online games quickly, and it looks cool to have beast cities.

I think Grayson's points on how the Spanish are better than the Romans (expansion-wise) pretty much sums it up. If you can find whales in under 3 turns of whale-hunting (not uncommon) then settle and simply pump out some warriors, a Galleon and then turn on the settler pumping, it's fairly unstoppable. I think the point about the mainland being hard to defend is rather null. All you need is like a Pikeman army, a Pikeman unit and a Catapult army and you're about set for main-land defense in your capital for a long time. Another thing about island settling, is that it is so unbelievably easy to defend your island cities, it is rather unfair. First off, with the Spanish you get the +1 naval combat, which means that your Galleons will be able to defeat any ship that comes near you until someone hits cruisers. Then, all you have to do is place a Pikeman army in your city, and some units on forests on the coast (this worst well if it is a 2 squares sized island, so the attackers get a -50% attacking from boat penalty) and you are again, set.

Lastly, gold with the Spanish comes hand-in-hand with their expansion. Considering every single island (or nearly ever island) has at least one exploration tile on it, you can just unload your settler, find it (get the doubled-exploration cash bonus) then settle in the preferred spot while gain anywhere from 15-80 gold. Depending on the amount of gold you get, and depending on the age, you can then rush a Library/Market the turn you settle, because of the exploration gold.

Add me, I'm Communist Pride on my new account. I'll play on it more so I have at least 10 games played, and don't look so pathetic :S

Morte, Gray and MK, 4-way game?

Click to expand...

Kadazzle said:

I haven't played Civ in a long time (it's been too long.. weeks maybe), but I do think the Spanish are better than the Romans for teching and expansion, just like how the Chinese are better than the Romans. The Romans are a civ where I like to bunker-down and have 4-5 good powerhouse cities, while I have around 8+ unit spamming cities. This is good because I usually can win the online games quickly, and it looks cool to have beast cities.

I think Grayson's points on how the Spanish are better than the Romans (expansion-wise) pretty much sums it up. If you can find whales in under 3 turns of whale-hunting (not uncommon) then settle and simply pump out some warriors, a Galleon and then turn on the settler pumping, it's fairly unstoppable. I think the point about the mainland being hard to defend is rather null. All you need is like a Pikeman army, a Pikeman unit and a Catapult army and you're about set for main-land defense in your capital for a long time. Another thing about island settling, is that it is so unbelievably easy to defend your island cities, it is rather unfair. First off, with the Spanish you get the +1 naval combat, which means that your Galleons will be able to defeat any ship that comes near you until someone hits cruisers. Then, all you have to do is place a Pikeman army in your city, and some units on forests on the coast (this worst well if it is a 2 squares sized island, so the attackers get a -50% attacking from boat penalty) and you are again, set.

Lastly, gold with the Spanish comes hand-in-hand with their expansion. Considering every single island (or nearly ever island) has at least one exploration tile on it, you can just unload your settler, find it (get the doubled-exploration cash bonus) then settle in the preferred spot while gain anywhere from 15-80 gold. Depending on the amount of gold you get, and depending on the age, you can then rush a Library/Market the turn you settle, because of the exploration gold.

Add me, I'm Communist Pride on my new account. I'll play on it more so I have at least 10 games played, and don't look so pathetic :S

Morte, Gray and MK, 4-way game?

Click to expand...

MorteEterna said:

In my opinion still romans are better then other civilizations, only the hardest civilization to play

Click to expand...

GGrayson said:

yes, the half price wonders are good swings in momentum, but in the early game, the chinese are definatly the better expanders. kadazzle mentioned the extra pop that can work on forests to produce settlers faster. the chinese will build larger cities, and it really doesnt take long to get to code of laws for them. All the have to do is research alphabet then code of laws (they have writing free, which is what usually slows other civs down from getting CoL, because writing costs 40)

I still don't think halfpriced roads are a gamebreaker. The romans need to expand a lot at the beginning to get powerful. The chinese can play a little more conservatively, still expand just as fast because of higher pop, then get to 5 techs, get republic, then it's nuts.

Maybe you don't realize the boost in science that you get from half-priced libraries. But basically, you're producing around 80-100 tech whenever you get 14 techs, and still not in democracy. Then you hit 14 techs, get democracy, then in a matter of about 5 turns from when you are only producing 80-100 science per turn, all the sudden you've got about 250-300 per turn.

It's often no problem to get to modern by around 0AD-200AD, and have tanks around that time.

they chinese are ridiculously overpowered, and i've never heard a single player say that for romans.

rome is a good civ, but the only ace in the deck is really the half-priced wonders. republic is really nice, but not overpowered. +1 pop and halfpriced libraries is too much for a civ to get, not to mention +1 science from literacy, and getting essential techs like literacy and writing for free (100 beakers saved in teching).

Click to expand...

MorteEterna said:

It's because Rome is not played. Maybe I'm one of the only ones that like romans and play them.. But I still think Rome can beat chinese, it's difficult to say how, but it's possible. Rome is only harder to play, and modern era by 0-200 AD in every game is like cheating, with tanks

PS: You should see the old leaderboard, I mean the first months. Most of the top players were romans players and it was difficult to beat them.

Click to expand...

GGrayson said:

from what i understand you're saying romans are the most powerful civ because:

- no one uses them hardly, so they catch people off guard, or players aren't as skilled playing against them?

-they can beat the chinese, you think, but you don't know the specifics or can't articulate it.

- rome is hard to play, so most people don't recognize their potential.

- the romans were popular when the game was released (before the mega-city was patched and before they patched the militia defending undefended cities to prevent walkins)


Morte, I'm not trying to argue with you, I owe a lot of my skill to you, and I always respect your opinion. I just don't understand this one.

If you admit the chinese are overpowered and modern by 200AD and tanks about that time too is overpowered, then why again are the romans more powerful than the chinese? Of course the romans can beat the chinese, I've been spanking a lot of top 10 chinese players with the americans and spanish, and a lot easier than i can with the romans.

Is this just a case of you being italian and wanting them to be strong? Especially since they were very strong before the patch? The Romans are a good civ, but they are never mentioned anymore in the overpowered debate since they patched the mega-city.

Honestly, If you were playing a game against yourself, and you controlled the chinese and the romans, who do you think would win? I think you know that answer. The chinese are way more flexible in every area than the romans, except wonder building and road building, neither of which scare me or you.

the chinese expand better, tech better, fight better, and yes they are easier to use, even more easy to use than the zulu. The chinese just have that 50% handicap in their favor for them, so it's like cheating, I agree with that. But it's the developer's choice that made it that way.

Also Morte, I think you are probably more powerful with the Americans as well, from everything you've posted in the past about them....

*I'm sick of trashing the Romans though. I've said my peace. I like the Romans and have used them a lot. I just don't think they are better than a few civs, but they are still fun, powerful, and make me enjoy the game because they do in fact require skill. Not as much skill to use as say playing well with the Indians, but they still require a lot of skill to take down a top player.

Click to expand...

MKElderGod said:

MR Game theory was a really good roman player. I remember he had 6 cities by the time my 2 impi armies found him.

Click to expand...

MKElderGod said:

grayson, Dude im gonna bomber you, again... Romans are overpowered but they require skill. Its true that you can be overpowered and require skill. Everyone assumes overpowered comes hand in hand with easy use. Romans can expand and expand fast. Ive gotten 15-20 cities out before democracy. Which is so fast especially that Romans are right next to Democracy due to having code of laws. Also wonders in general are overpowered. Being able to build a wonder in a couple of turns will go hand and hand with your large amount of cities. CURRENCY grab it with the romans. You should be able to get it before anyone every time.

Click to expand...

GGrayson said:

I'm not saying the romans aren't good, just saying they aren't the best. I don't even play with the civs that I think are the best anymore because it's boring to me.

But the games we played the other night, you didn't really defend your cities. You basically just had single archers in most of your cities to cut corners. And I got currency first in those games I think, but you are right, you should get currency first if you are rome, since you have a jump start on it.

You can have 15-20 cities before democracy, that's no problem. But you aren't getting democracy in 1000BC. More like 0AD if you're fast with romans. If others give you trouble at the beginning via a rush, or just camping in your territory to snatch settlers or stifle growth and production, or even just to choke off the map, it's not easy for rome to expand as much as possible.

And half priced roads are not gonna make rome better than the chinese. It will make the movement of units and settlers quicker, but you're still spending money on it. A well placed road is nice though, I'm not saying roads are always bad. I just don't build that many.

And Morte, the chinese are better expanding, even if they have to get back to 3 pop before building a new settler. Those new cities will be larger, while rome is just spamming cities of 2 and 3 pop early on. Code of Laws is usually about 20-30 turns in the game anyway for the chinese, so after that, china is no doubt better at expanding. It takes 18 food and 20 hammers to grow back to 3 pop from rushing a settler. So basically 5 turns on 2 grass and 1 hammer, then two turns on 2 forests on one worker (or 3 forests if it's there), and you've got enough food to grow back to 3 and be ready to work on another settler. so 7 turns to build it and bank the food, just the same as the romans @ 2 pop, plus the cities are larger.

Click to expand...

GGrayson said:

I'm not saying the romans aren't good, just saying they aren't the best. I don't even play with the civs that I think are the best anymore because it's boring to me.

But the games we played the other night, you didn't really defend your cities. You basically just had single archers in most of your cities to cut corners. And I got currency first in those games I think, but you are right, you should get currency first if you are rome, since you have a jump start on it.

You can have 15-20 cities before democracy, that's no problem. But you aren't getting democracy in 1000BC. More like 0AD if you're fast with romans. If others give you trouble at the beginning via a rush, or just camping in your territory to snatch settlers or stifle growth and production, or even just to choke off the map, it's not easy for rome to expand as much as possible.

And half priced roads are not gonna make rome better than the chinese. It will make the movement of units and settlers quicker, but you're still spending money on it. A well placed road is nice though, I'm not saying roads are always bad. I just don't build that many.

And Morte, the chinese are better expanding, even if they have to get back to 3 pop before building a new settler. Those new cities will be larger, while rome is just spamming cities of 2 and 3 pop early on. Code of Laws is usually about 20-30 turns in the game anyway for the chinese, so after that, china is no doubt better at expanding. It takes 18 food and 20 hammers to grow back to 3 pop from rushing a settler. So basically 5 turns on 2 grass and 1 hammer, then two turns on 2 forests on one worker (or 3 forests if it's there), and you've got enough food to grow back to 3 and be ready to work on another settler. so 7 turns to build it and bank the food, just the same as the romans @ 2 pop, plus the cities are larger.

Click to expand...