[R&F] Civ of the Week: Rome!

[liv]

Besides, I don't even build half of my Legions. At least 6 of them will be upgraded warriors. I don't need but 1-3 more of them and a battering ram.

Is it not better to chop them in than to upgrade them?

I had a lot more than 3 legions. They are slow so to to be effective I feel it is better to go to war with more them and spread them out

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Upgrading warriors to legions is a good idea but there is a gold bottle-neck there. The mistake that I frequently make is that I spend too much gold upgrading slingers into archers so I end up with extra warriors that sit around until I can pillage enough to upgrade them. Archers are so squishy (and legions so stout) that it doesn't make sense to make too many of them.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Upgrading warriors to legions is a good idea but there is a gold bottle-neck there. The mistake that I frequently make is that I spend too much gold upgrading slingers into archers so I end up with extra warriors that sit around until I can pillage enough to upgrade them. Archers are so squishy (and legions so stout) that it doesn't make sense to make too many of them.

hey i did exactly this thing last night, haha

 

[AmazonQueen]

Rome is the only civ I've managed to get political philosophy with in the ancient era and playing them I'm usually pretty well set up by the start of the classical era. Very newbie friendly.

 

[sixty4half]

Upgrading warriors to legions is a good idea but there is a gold bottle-neck there. The mistake that I frequently make is that I spend too much gold upgrading slingers into archers so I end up with extra warriors that sit around until I can pillage enough to upgrade them. Archers are so squishy (and legions so stout) that it doesn't make sense to make too many of them.

I don't normally invest in archers. I go for 6 warriors. 4 can take out a CS while I'm building 2 more. 6 can take out the first two AI civ cities. Upgrading those to Swordsmen take out cities faster. Battering Rams come along and make cities and their walls fall in 1-2 turns.

I might make 1 slinger for a inspiration and to hold a flank with 1 warrior but melee/cavalry is so strong in this game that I don't see ranged as being worth it until Frigates and Artillery. In CiV it was quite the opposite. I would make twice as many bow/CBow/XBow as I would melee units. Melee were more of a meat shield in ciV. Try and push those bows up to +1 range before the XBow upgrade came around... but that was then, this is different.

In civ6 I would say the bottleneck comes if you decide to rush Chariots to Knights. You're going for Iron Mines if you get Inspirations Knights aren't far behind swords. In these cases I will only build 4 warriors. Usually caused by a Knight UU. I don't normally rush straight to "Stirrups" (SMDH) because getting Feudalism usually seems so far away I can't normally get it as an inspiration.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I don't normally invest in archers. I go for 6 warriors. 4 can take out a CS while I'm building 2 more. 6 can take out the first two AI civ cities. Upgrading those to Swordsmen take out cities faster. Battering Rams come along and make cities and their walls fall in 1-2 turns.

I might make 1 slinger for a inspiration and to hold a flank with 1 warrior but melee/cavalry is so strong in this game that I don't see ranged as being worth it until Frigates and Artillery. In CiV it was quite the opposite. I would make twice as many bow/CBow/XBow as I would melee units. Melee were more of a meat shield in ciV. Try and push those bows up to +1 range before the XBow upgrade came around... but that was then, this is different.

In civ6 I would say the bottleneck comes if you decide to rush Chariots to Knights. You're going for Iron Mines if you get Inspirations Knights aren't far behind swords. In these cases I will only build 4 warriors. Usually caused by a Knight UU. I don't normally rush straight to "Stirrups" (SMDH) because getting Feudalism usually seems so far away I can't normally get it as an inspiration.

The archers are mostly there to keep you alive until you reach legions, although they're also good for killing ai units. I still want the archers, I just make do with fewer because I know how strong the legions are. To me this situation is particular to Rome because I wouldn't (usually) invest in swordsmen the way I will legions. Knights are great, but they come significantly after IW. If you want to keep conquering into the Medieval Era Rome can use knights to great affect, but by that time (hopefully) you've already subdued your nearest neighbors with legions. The Roman knight rush is extremely viable as because the extra culture can get you to feudalism quickly. Then you upgrade chariots or chop in knights. By that time legions are still viable, but they aren't the beasts that they are if you can get them early enough.

 

[liv]

In the Rome game I played archers became just decoys since AI will try to attack them first no matter what. Legions with oligarchy and the oligarchy card can just bulldoze through the AI. The only thing keeping them back is their slowness which is why I fielded a rather large army. And I think it make more sense to use legions to chop in legions. It is cheaper than upgrading which will cost 110 gold and depending on the situation you may not be able to afford upgrading everything and maintaining if you are going to run the oligarchy card and agoge at the same time

And a legion running the two cards for oligarchy and with ugrades will be quite strong even when you normally have knights

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, this is a great Temple of Artemis Start, if you can get it.
Game Random Seed -759542101

Map Random -759537070

Rome, Emperor, Shuffle, Normal Size, Normal Speed

Spoiler :

Unfortunately, it turned into a "hit end turn to win" now since there's literally nothing to do but will finish this at some point.

Also, aqueduct rules suck. :S I thought I could build one northeast of the city center.

 

[Jimdigriz]

Dang! I haven't played Civ VI for ages but this thread is making me get Rise and Fall and start a new Rome game.

 

[The Highwayman]

I just finished my Rome game of the week and here are a few notes:
Immortal/Large map (8 total civs)/Continents/Abundant resources

My game really showed off the power of the Legion
There were very few barbs (didn't get eureka for BW).
Zero iron anywhere on my side of the map (no eureka for Iron).
Entered a dark age which made keeping cities virtually impossible. I had to take Scythia's capitol and the subsequent Free city 3 or 4 times.
Had to fend off Scythia's ridiculous unit spam.
No inspiration for Political Philosophy. The AI was gobbling up all of the City States regardless of their location or usefulness (imagine that, as it was never even tested).
Slow expansion...I think I had 3 cities (including a conquered CS that turned out to be my best city end game) at turn 50 or so.
Gold starved. Few gold resources, no commercial CS, AI didn't give me much money via trades. Spent all of my gold upgrading Warriors to Legions.

However...

I earned enough points for a golden age which launched me into a heroic age and it was immediately game over. With double Oligarchy and multiple promos, my Legion army just rolled Scythia from there. I added a few Knights to help take the Netherlands' cap. Warlord's Throne helped speed up my infrastructure that was lagging behind. With the Goddess of the Harvest pantheon, I rushed settlers with faith from my Magnus city, along with endless builders, did the sit back and build infrastructure thing and rushed to tanks/modern armor from there.

Bottom line, the free monuments and roads combined with no Iron requirement for the UU can really overcome lackluster starts and slingshot you to a strong game. At their best Rome isn't S tier, but A tier no doubt. I really love their flow: mass expand, Warlord's Throne gives production boost + Oligarchy Legacy card, stomp neighbors, get a bunch of free stuff in every city that you want anyway.

 

[TheDouche]

I think Rome is one of the most consistent civs out there, and alongside with Monte and Nubia they can win in pretty much any situations.

I like to start with an encampment, settle a city for a government plaza chop and one for the iron mine boost. Around turn 50-60, you start steamrolling with oligarchy+oligharhic legacy+great general, and the 55 damage legions taking down cities in 2 hits are a thing of beauty. Now you can't pillage as much as with horse rushes, but I feel that the better trade routes and infrastructure kinda make up for it.

I usually continue with campuses, hubs and a colliseum, while slowly taking down what's left of the continent.
I wonder how do you guys play them for fast deity wins?

 

[liv]

I think Rome is one of the most consistent civs out there, and alongside with Monte and Nubia they can win in pretty much any situations.

I like to start with an encampment, settle a city for a government plaza chop and one for the iron mine boost. Around turn 50-60, you start steamrolling with oligarchy+oligharhic legacy+great general, and the 55 damage legions taking down cities in 2 hits are a thing of beauty. Now you can't pillage as much as with horse rushes, but I feel that the better trade routes and infrastructure kinda make up for it.

I usually continue with campuses, hubs and a colliseum, while slowly taking down what's left of the continent.
I wonder how do you guys play them for fast deity wins?

Yeah that is how it goes. Rome is good - made better by the fact that you can chop legions in with legions.
Those trade routes were pretty good once the effect kicks in
did you build any baths?

Is Rome the perfect entry level Civ for someone who's never played Civ?

I was thinking about it and sort of think maybe Germany or America would be better. They are more intuitive. To get the best out of Rome you have to be able to manipulate a bit.

 

[Equilin]

Leader Ability: Trajan's Column. All founded cities start with a free building in the City Centre (Monument for Ancient Era starts).

I've always wondered what happens in later starts? Do they ever get nothing or sewers for example instead of monuments?

monument-->granary-->ancient walls-->etc etc.

If you "repeat" that ability for Rome (modding/xml editing) they will get 2 buildings (e.g. monument&granary in ancient era start).

 

[sixty4half]

monument-->granary-->ancient walls-->etc etc.

If you "repeat" that ability for Rome (modding/xml editing) they will get 2 buildings (e.g. monument&granary in ancient era start).

They get ancient walls at the same time everyone else does, in a Renaissance Era start, so that's never the Rome bonus. After the granary (Medieval Start) they get a Water Mill if on a River or Lake, and Medieval Walls if not. Then at Modern Starts, non-fresh water cities get a Sewer while other cities still get a Water Mill as their bonus.

IDK what you mean by "repeat" that ability. They only ever get 1 bonus building. It's just that other civs start getting free buildings as well once you get up to Medieval Starts (Monuments), so that becomes the default and Rome's Bonus becomes the Granary. I made a little chart on page 2 explaining everything in more detail.

 

[Disgustipated]

Still finishing up my game. For those who love Earth Goddess, load my save from post #9, and send your warrior North and get that goodie hut. That pantheon has certainly helped me. Not sure if that relic will still pop though.

as mentioned, Rome is a fantastic all around civ. I didn't do much legion conquest my game. It's been a fun game with me almost losing my capital twice. Aggressive civs in the early game. I would say one negative with a classical era uu civ compared to say Nubia or Aztecs is the difficulty in forming alliances with later conquests. Even Vicky didn't renew friendship/alliance and I have no friendships in the modern era. This continues to be a problem in this game. Still, it's easy to succeed even without those sweet alliance trade routes. Taking 2 Macedon cities was all it took to lose hope of any alliances.

I am still wrapping up a cultural victory, it will be one of my earlier ones I think, certainly better than my lackluster Sumer game, but certainly not in the same league as Pericles where I had an amazingly early finish.

Good for all victory types, though not that great for religious victory, but doesn't excel on any one of them. Grade on my own special scoring system is A-.

 

[Disgustipated]

This victory took a bit more work than expected. But then again I am competing against Pericles who really ramped up his culture in the end. Ended up rank #5 Nelson Mandela. Not that the rankings are that scientific, but it's 2 notches higher than my Sumer game. But to me this game was loads more fun. Of course getting Earth Goddess always helps. And finally managed to form 3 friendships and alliances near the end of the modern era (world era not mine), it's frustrating because most of the game you can't take advantage of rise and fall mechanics regarding alliances, so that's why I'm often reluctant to war past the ancient era.

I even had the AI take out my governor Reyna who was really pumping out the tourism in a city with a themed art museum and art/music work. If I had planned this better I would have put hermitage or the government district in this city to really pile on the art work. In the future I'll try to create a tourism mega city just for fun. I wasn't playing optimally this game and didn't build theater squares until later. I'm not sure if this was smart AI or just they randomly chose that governor.

And with Earth godess I ended up with 6 national parks, but could have easily built a couple more. I just got sick of building them.

And I must have liberated Buenos Aires this game 4 or 5 times, and I believe every time was a city-state emergency. Gave me something to do. The AI really had a thing for that city state.

Behold my double national park:

Spoiler :

Always a fun civ to play, can really never turn down Rome.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

One thing I have noticed about infantry civs like Rome or the Aztec, is that if I stick with the original units due to promotions, and don't switch over to a heavy cav focus @ stirrups, the game progresses much slower. I may feel like I'm doing really well, but I inevitably end up with at least some degree of competition past the mid game due, I'm hypothesizing, to the relative weaker strength of the infantry versus heavy cav strategies. This is opposed to say Macedon or Gilgamesh. I'm still plugging away for a science victory with Rome (and having allot of fun with it) in like 1700AD. With Macedon or Sumer, with the same map size, speed and circumstances (perma-war throughout the entire game), I will often close the game out circa 1000AD. And I could give a hoot about quick finishing times, preferring instead to conquer a civ in its entirety as opposed to just cherry picking capitals.

At present I'm just trying to close out the game, and trying to see how high I can get the production of Puteoli without having an industrial zone or vertical integration.

Spoiler :

In closing, Oligarchy + Oligarchic legacy is strong early, but doesn't finish really well. I miss my +1 amenity Classical Republic legacy. And again, due to the Legion's strength, I was hesitant to surplus them, which my hypothesizing slowed my victory time through the mid game and into the late game. Just something I've noticed having played a few games. So, their early strength becomes something of a problem over the long term if you don't correct for it. From now on, I'm going to use the Legion but switch to knights @ stirrups.

 

[Leathaface]

Is Rome good for cultural victories?

 

[Archon_Wing]

They're not exceptional but they're pretty decent in that they can reach Drama and Poetry faster than most and the trade routes can also help with tourism. Beyond that, they don't really have anything that boosts cultural victory specifically.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Is Rome good for cultural victories?

Rome's potential for expansion means that they'll have the muscle to pump out archaeologists and sea resorts as well as unlock computers early to seal the deal. The don't specialize in CVs but they're very capable because they're so strong.