[BTS] charismatic romans, some guidance?

[Hamilton321]

I have a new challenge for myself and I desire some guidance. I am a monarch player but am preparing to move up to emperor. Right after I master cultural and domination victories on monarch so that I can have multiple routes to victory, I will move to emperor. I had an idea for myself, I could use unrestricted leaders to play Rome as charismatic leaders, since I find Rome to be the easiest nation to play it would be an excellent place to start. I would like some help to choose which to play first and also how to play whoever I choose. I have already started games on monarch as Hannibal and Boudica, but not finished them. I often play multiple games at a time and decide which one I want to play at any given time.

 

[Imploding]

I like your approach of having multiple starts and going with the most fun/promising one.. and I'll chip in my 2 cents.

It all depends.. Every leader and trait have a advantage. Your job is to use that advantage to get max value out of it.

That being said.. Charismatic is IMO one of the best designed traits. Because it has a nice early game from the extra happiness and it can make your army stay relevant for 20-30 turns longer because of good upgrades and settled generals etc.

A good trait to pair up charismatic with.. (and i presume early war.. because of prets..).. is probably a economic trait.. maybe organized or financial.. I would also consider industrious.. for the potential to chop out an economic/research wonder.

I have actually played the Romans quite much lately on deity on inland sea.. and I really want to get cool win. I have a designed a strategy with Augustus caesar.. IND/IMP.
Where I try to get he great wall quick.. and then go into quick settler production.. to take advantage of both traits. TGW is superb for barb defense on big landmaps like inland sea. and i can
Then take out a Ai with Prets.. and use the Great spy you eventually get from TGW to spysteal your way back into the game. It makes for a really fun game.. but I do fall into the trap of what I best can describe as.. "to rigid in my strategy" so I just really want something to work.. instead of going for the best usage of the land or my traits. Which I consider to be the easiest way to loose a game or get myself in a position where I don't want to finish the game.

Anyways.. good luck with your game! Have fun

 

[lymond]

If you want my personal recommendation here, I don't think your approach to "moving up" is helped by playing Rome or the "perceived" easier setup. Moving up and improving is not about traits or leaders, is about gameplay and strategy. The efficacy of the Rome civ devalues with each level you progress to. Improving on basic mechanics and strategies will help you win on higher levels, not certain traits or unique units. Praets require IW which is generally not an optimal thing for the human to tech anyway, although on lower levels it matters little. On higher levels it will matter.

With that said, if you want to pursue this particular path, both Celtic leaders would work with Rome. Boudi gives you super Praets, although Brennus has a far better trait combo with Spiritual, and Spiritual is a trait you should really learn to master. You could also go for any other Char leader with a good matching trait. Lincoln, Wash, Hanny, or DeGaulle.

There's really not much advice on the leaders themselves other than trying to take advantage of the other trait as best as possible. Hanny is obvious. Lincoln you can try to get up fast libraries to run scientists asap for Academy or a first Maths bulb for better chops and quicker Construction. Wash has faster grans and workers - EXP is nice. DeGaulle IND traits allows for some key early wonders, or even better some fail gold opportunities to generate large sums of gold.

 

[enKage]

All my advances to higher level where done with PHI leaders. I don't know why, really, but I never could do it with other traits. Maybe simply advancing is learning a better use of specialists and bulbing? So I would rather propose Lincoln of Rome.

Rome of course is good due to strong legions, but remember, that UU is not enough, especially that one, which needs some de-tour of typical teching path. Ealy strong techs are important (France! China!) and good early unit too (Persia, Egypt, Mongolia, Natives). I would even say, Rome is not the best civ to advance - consider especially Natives as probably you will encounter more barb problems and Dog Soldiers are the best to stop any barb invasions. You wouldnt be able to do an early rush, but in your 1st games on Emperor you wouldnt do it anyway. Sumeria is also good in these terms.

(My 1st won games on monarch-immortal was Sitting Bull. Strange, isn't it?)

 

[nocho]

I moved up the ladders using Catherine first. With IMP and CRE the inital land grab was easier, as my main problem was you'd get boxed in earlier on higher levels while rushing the opponents got less easy. With at least some reasonable amount of land to work with I'd focus on the economy, trading, bulbs and diplo to break out with the supercavs. That helped me to master exactly what's needed (i.e. economy, trading, bulbs and diplo) as you move up.