The Rome Thread

[jsciv69]

When In Rome.
There is no Civilization without Rome. The obvious traits as Road builders and Conquerors and Togas. It's quite surprising that in the last four Civilization installments, Rome of all Civilizations was only given one leader per game. And not even alternatives in expansion games. It's especially surprising as Roman Civilization spans at least 3 phases. Kingdom, Republic, and Empire. Which gives an interesting choice of who should lead Rome. I'll give a few names let's see who stands out.
Romulus: Founder and first King of Rome
Numa Pompilius: Built the Temple of Janis, Created new Calender, Established office of Ponitfux Maximus
Lucius Mummius Achaicus: Consul of Rome during final conquest of Greece
Pompey: Consul of Rome 3 times. Commander of many Military victories.
Julius Caesar: Created the Julian Calender, Initiated several land reforms and building projects
Augustus: First Emperor of Rome. Greatly expanded Roman territory. Created Roads, Police and Fire services, Established Praetorian Guard
Hadrian: Built Wall named for him, Rebuilt Pantheon, Built Temple of Venus and Roma
Constantine: Established Christianity in Rome. Summoned first Council of Nicaea

Unique Unit ideas: Roman Legions, Praetorian Guard, Gladiator
Traits and Bonuses: Production bonuses toward Construction and Engineering.
Unique Structures: Roman Colosseum, Pantheon, Roman Bath

 

[Evie]

Nobody had multiple leaders in civ 3 or 5, and Rome should NOT be an exception in a one civ = one leader game (nobody should be), and Rome does have multiple leaders in both IV and VI, so the claim that they have only had four leaders in the last four games is simply false.

Nobody should be guaranteed multiple leaders in the vanilla game, either. That's very much something that should happen in expansions.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Legionary Military Engineerings should be default ability to Roman 'Army' (All units) enabled earlier than everyone else (tech)
2. Roman Legion is heavy infantry. but they ain't always 'Army of Armored Swordsmen', they do have spearmen in the same Legionairy armor.
3. Leader list. I might even consider Republic era ones this time.
Constantin I is better represent Byzatium, him astriding Roman Empire is a good thing though.
But most of the time. Romans are represented as Olympian worshippers who disdain One True God. There never was Christianized Roman represented in game beyond Early Medieval leaders of Byzantium. (whom called themselves Romans even with them became increasingly Greeks),

Off topic on generic unit. Dromon should now be generic unit.. being Medieval galley (everyone around Byzantium uses them, be there Arabians, Italians, and even North Atlantic Kingdoms)( Byzantine UU however should be 'Fire Dromon' and being melee ship, also requires oil to build and maintain, Byzantine can discover oil earlier)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My first choice would be Hadrian. Has never been in Civ before and is considered one of the "Five Good Emperors". Constantine is also interesting but feels like stepping on the toes of a possible future Byzantium, which at this point is inevitable.

Unique Unit ideas: Roman Legions, Praetorian Guard, Gladiator

Wouldn't gladiators fight against Rome?
I could see them getting the Ballistae again as a potential secondary UU. But the Roman Legion is too iconic to leave behind as one.

Unique Structures: Roman Colosseum, Pantheon, Roman Bath

The Pantheon makes more sense as a generic world wonder. I'm surprised you didn't mention a Roman Forum instead.

 

[jsciv69]

My first choice would be Hadrian. Has never been in Civ before and is considered one of the "Five Good Emperors". Constantine is also interesting but feels like stepping on the toes of a possible future Byzantium, which at this point is inevitable.

Wouldn't gladiators fight against Rome?
I could see them getting the Ballistae again as a potential secondary UU. But the Roman Legion is too iconic to leave behind as one.

The Pantheon makes more sense as a generic world wonder. I'm surprised you didn't mention a Roman Forum instead.

I'm also thinking The Curia Julia(Senate House) constructed in the Capital City. Especially if Julius Caesar is brought back as leader. And perhaps a Thermae(Bath House) in every city. Also consider the Ludus Magnus which was a large school for training Gladiators. perhaps this could be built in each Encampment Zone.

 

[Phrozen]

Lucius Junius Brutus should be the leader.

 

[jsciv69]

Lucius Junius Brutus should be the leader.

I would say it's possible that a Kingdom or Republic Era leader can be added in an Expansion game. Most likely the base game will go with an Emperor people know like Augustus or Hadrian.

 

[Evie]

With a thousand years of Imperial and Republican leaders, including some of the most notable names in world history, I think we can afford to skip the one that's generally seen by historians as mythologized beyond all recognition (at best) or someone who never existed at worst.

 

[jsciv69]

With a thousand years of Imperial and Republican leaders, including some of the most notable names in world history, I think we can afford to skip the one that's generally seen by historians as mythologized beyond all recognition (at best) or someone who never existed at worst.

I could see some rational regarding the likes of Pompey. Perhaps Romulus, if he really existed. I don't see anyone else from those eras being considered.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My first choice would be Hadrian. Has never been in Civ before and is considered one of the "Five Good Emperors". Constantine is also interesting but feels like stepping on the toes of a possible future Byzantium, which at this point is inevitable.

Wouldn't gladiators fight against Rome?
I could see them getting the Ballistae again as a potential secondary UU. But the Roman Legion is too iconic to leave behind as one.

The Pantheon makes more sense as a generic world wonder. I'm surprised you didn't mention a Roman Forum instead.

Marius, I believe, used gladiators to train his troops, and they were occasionally recruited into the legions when things got extreme, but in general, they are no more military troops than professional football players are - they were entertainers and should be considered in the same collection as other cultural/happiness mechanics.

The Onager was Rome's own version of the catapult, but not particularly different from the generic sort. The carrobalista, or cart-mounted light bolt-thrower, was unique to Imperial Rome, and used both to defend legion forts and to support Roman troops in the field. It would be tricky to implement if they keep Civ VI's categories, though, because it was really too light to have any sort of 'siege' effect: the closest later equivalent would be battalion or infantry guns for direct heavy weapon support of the troops in the 18th and early 20th centuries.

Romulus and the original Brutus are both laden with mythology and may or may not have actually existed. On the other hand, the Roman Pre-Imperial era has the Tarquinian kings, the Gracchi brothers, Pompey Magnus, Marius who really formed the 'classic' heavy Legion of professionals - there are lots to choose from, especially since virtually every Roman General also held some kind of political office, so the likes of Scipio Africanus could also be added to the list.

 

[Patine]

Constantine is also interesting but feels like stepping on the toes of a possible future Byzantium, which at this point is inevitable.

Constantine, himself? Given he ruled the WHOLE Roman Empire's territory, and had more personal power than any Emperor for at least a century before or a century after him, and he still held much stronger to the Roman traditions (just morphed into a Christianized vein with a new capital), he'd be very much a Roman leader, if a very latter day one, not a Byzatine one.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Onager was Rome's own version of the catapult, but not particularly different from the generic sort. The carrobalista, or cart-mounted light bolt-thrower, was unique to Imperial Rome, and used both to defend legion forts and to support Roman troops in the field. It would be tricky to implement if they keep Civ VI's categories, though, because it was really too light to have any sort of 'siege' effect: the closest later equivalent would be battalion or infantry guns for direct heavy weapon support of the troops in the 18th and early 20th centuries.

I could see it being a more mobile siege unit, if we go by Civ 6 units, similar to Khmer's Domrey which could move and attack on the same turn.

Constantine, himself? Given he ruled the WHOLE Roman Empire's territory, and had more personal power than any Emperor for at least a century before or a century after him, and he still held much stronger to the Roman traditions (just morphed into a Christianized vein with a new capital), he'd be very much a Roman leader, if a very latter day one, not a Byzatine one.

I didn't mean he'd be Byzantine leader. He'd presumably have Constantinople as his capital and would give Rome religious elements. All of this would work better under a separate Byzantine civ, in my opinion.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Romulus: Founder and first King of Rome

Julius Caesar: Created the Julian Calender, Initiated several land reforms and building projects
Augustus: First Emperor of Rome. Greatly expanded Roman territory. Created Roads, Police and Fire services, Established Praetorian Guard

Constantine: Established Christianity in Rome. Summoned first Council of Nicaea

That 4 names are cool to be a Roman leader, the others aren't so good.

Nobody had multiple leaders in civ 3 or 5, and Rome should NOT be an exception in a one civ = one leader game (nobody should be), and Rome does have multiple leaders in both IV and VI, so the claim that they have only had four leaders in the last four games is simply false.

Nobody should be guaranteed multiple leaders in the vanilla game, either. That's very much something that should happen in expansions.

I agree with Evie, just one Roman leader at least in Vanila edition.
If we will do a dual leader to Rome, it should be a Byzantine leader as Justinian to avoid doing a Byzantium civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That 3 names are cool to be a Roman leader, the others aren't so good.

So Romulus, a mythological founder, is better than Hadrian?

 

[Henri Christophe]

So Romulus, a mythological founder, is better than Hadrian?

I don't have this issue with mythological characters.
I acctually think they are cool to be a civ leader.

 

[Evie]

Mythological leaders can do when we have good reason to believe they actually did exist and don't have so many better options without reusing the same ones (eg, Dido for Phoenicia), but not when we have a thousand years of well documented historical leaders to draw on. Seriously,.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Mythological leaders can do when we have good reason to believe they actually did exist and don't have so many better options without reusing the same ones (eg, Dido for Phoenicia), but not when we have a thousand years of well documented historical leaders to draw on. Seriously,.

Rome have good real names don't make Romulus a bad choice, since it's history is very well know and we just put it as myth because we just have romans sources.
But we do have some kind of sources what is good enouth.

 

[Patine]

That 4 names are cool to be a Roman leader, the others aren't so good.

I agree with Evie, just one Roman leader at least in Vanila edition.
If we will do a dual leader to Rome, it should be a Byzantine leader as Justinian to avoid doing a Byzantium civ.

The Byzantines were too far removed from the Romans in most meaningful ways to be the same civ, as I've said, save pretense of succession (although such pretenses are very contentious, and highly volatile matter - certainly too much so to link civ's as one on alone, considering the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Tsardom of Russia, and Mussolini's Fascists, and some whacko in the U.S. who used to have the, "America: the Fourth Roma," website in the 2000's, made the very same pretense of succession).

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Rome:
UB - All Roads Lead To Rome
UU - Corvus
UI - Bath
Leader #1 - Hadrian (The Greekling)
Leader #2 - Lucius Junius Brutus (Founder of the Republic)
possible Leader #3 - Diocletian (Tetrarchy)

Byzantines (DLC #4 or 5):
UB - The Five Patriarchs
UU - Dromon
UI - Hippodrome
Leader #1 - Justinian AND Theodora (Renovatio Imperii)
possible Leader #2 - Irene of Athens (The True Roman Empress)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Rome have good real names don't make Romulus a bad choice, since it's history is very well know and we just put it as myth because we just have romans sources.
But we do have some kind of sources what is good enouth.

Yet Romulus may have not existed and Hadrian would be good to represent the LGBT+ community.