Civ4 bts - Roman Praetorian

E

Elite Hoplite

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
32
In original civ, the Praetorian was a UU. The praetorian guard was made in the hail of Augustus. So why was in made in the time of Julius Caesar? The Praetorian guard also shouldn't be the UU for Rome. They were palace guards protecting the Senate. The Roman Legionare was the bulk of the army. They fought the successful battles and were jealous of the Praetorian guard because of their conditions. They were paid more and didn't have to fight. Any ideas?? Opinions??
 
Go play Rome Total War :). No seriously, you cant expect civ to be this realistic. Thought I think the Legionary would be a better UU, the pret is fine by me. Call them legionaries yourself in game if you want ;)
 
I like the idea of a UU for each leader, but as it stands it's by civ. Otherwise, extending this line of reasoning, Elizabeth shouldn't be able to build Redcoats, and Washington shouldn't have access to Navy SEALs.
 
Elite Hoplite said:
In original civ, the Praetorian was a UU. The praetorian guard was made in the hail of Augustus. So why was in made in the time of Julius Caesar?
Click to expand...

Because the game spans several thousand years, and leaders don't change during that period. While a different UU for each leader would be an interesting addition, I'm not sure how much it would add to the game, or whether or not it would apply in all cases, where a particular leader wasn't so influential on the army.

Elite Hoplite said:
The Praetorian guard also shouldn't be the UU for Rome. They were palace guards protecting the Senate. The Roman Legionare was the bulk of the army. They fought the successful battles and were jealous of the Praetorian guard because of their conditions. They were paid more and didn't have to fight. Any ideas?? Opinions??
Click to expand...

This I do agree with, but you can easily change the name to Legionary in XML. Giving them the pilum might be difficult, as I'm not sure there's an animation for a unit using javelins, shield and short sword, but I'm not really concerned with whether or not they have them.
 
Uberfrog said:
Because the game spans several thousand years, and leaders don't change during that period. While a different UU for each leader would be an interesting addition, I'm not sure how much it would add to the game, or whether or not it would apply in all cases, where a particular leader wasn't so influential on the army.
Click to expand...

I would love to see UUs attached to leaders instead of civs. Washington could have the Minuteman starts with Woodsman I and +25% vs. gunpowder units. It really just sounds like a bunch of extra programming, but nothing too advanced. Then again, anything beyond some line changes in the programming is advanced to me ;)
 
Wasn't the Roman UU the legion in Civ III? I can't remember when they changed it, but it always seemed odd to change it to the prat, which was more of a political significant entity, than the legion.
 
I've always thought it would have been neater for Civs to get UB's and one trait, and leaders get UU's and one trait, rather than leaders having two traits and Civs having the UU/UB. Maybe next Civ.
 
Yeah the Legion was in Civ III and it was a pretty powerful UU, why they decided to change it to Praets?? I dunno..

actually I think the American UU is kind of strange.. Navy Seal?? Every country has special forces, why did they pick the seal. Personally I would have chosen the Nimitz class carrier. It would hold 8 fighters instead of 3, it would have an awesome air and sea defense, and a two or three square radar. There is nothing really quite like it in the world. And it is definately in the top 5 of all time most effective war weapons.
 
sabo said:
actually I think the American UU is kind of strange.. Navy Seal?? Every country has special forces, why did they pick the seal. Personally I would have chosen the Nimitz class carrier. It would hold 8 fighters instead of 3, it would have an awesome air and sea defense, and a two or three square radar. There is nothing really quite like it in the world. And it is definately in the top 5 of all time most effective war weapons.
Click to expand...

I personally suspect it was because land units are more newb friendly than sea and air units, and so they had land-based unique units for all civs (until Portugal and Holland in BtS) to make unique units more accessible to players who would normally neglect their navy and air force.
 
I can't imagine forgoing a navy or airforce on any sort of water world maps (unless playing Warlord diff or below). The navy is so crucial to an archipelago or island map. Games become much easier on continents / pangea / hemispheres / big&small / medium&small when you have a bad ass navy / airforce. The Navy Seal is still mad weak tho.
 
Come now, SpiderMinky, you're talking too much sense. It's fun to debate historical realism in civ. Stop making so much sense! ;)
 
I don't know..."Legionare Rush" is much more of a mouthful then "Prat Rush"...
 
maybe at the beginning the preats were chosen from the best of the legionairres (i don't know) in if that is the case then there is not that much of a difference - but there was a long debate on this awhile back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jsciv69
The Rome Thread
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
pineappledan
pineappledan
konata_LS
Why did Chuck DOW his friend
Replies
18
Views
1K
AcaMetis
AcaMetis
E
[BTS] Earth Equatorial Islands - a more accurate realistic map for Civ4 BTS RFC
Replies
5
Views
291
HNation
HNation
Predator145
Ancient Forts from Kyriakos' city graphics
Replies
2
Views
520
Predator145
Predator145
AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 324: Augustus Caesar of Rome
Replies
18
Views
2K
alhill
A
Top Bottom