do you like Rome? I don't.

[Jim Bro]

Rome needs a buff. Everything is average about this civ.

I once played with them (with abundant resources set on) and had only two irons.
I may not even build a single catapult because I usually start my games with the focus on expansion so ballistas are almost useless in my opinion.

What are your impressions on this?

PS: they are at the very bottom of my list along with the native american civs.

 

[Olleus]

How can they be both average and at the very bottom of the list?

 

[qalsip1977]

I think Rome has it's strengths. Obviously they are very dependant on iron, but assuming you have it (even if via CS), they're a force to be reckoned with in the early game. I go Liberty for REX, rush IW for Legions which you can build pretty quickly (2-3 can take down a city with average defenses), then over to Mathematics for ballistas for support. Rome shines for early wide warmongering IMO. The UA allows you to build your cities up quickly. Legions road building ability can be utilized to build a road to your nearest AI for quick assault.

Is it the best Civ for any one thing? Nope. But if you want to establish early dominance in any game and are wanting a wide empire Civ to do it with...Rome has all the tools.

 

[Jim Bro]

How can they be both average and at the very bottom of the list?

if you don't like the terminology, they have bad unique units and an average unique ability.

a unique unit that depends on resources
a unique unit that will likely be built once or twice
a unique ability that is no particularly fun and fairly average makes it an unappealing civ. at least if the production bonus was for every building then I would reconsider what I just said.

maybe someone has a strategy with them that is worth mentionning so please just stick to this.

 

[Babri]

a unique unit that depends on resources

Many UUs depend upon resources. U must be unlucky that u did not get enough iron.

a unique unit that will likely be built once or twice

Early strong UUs are can are crucial for early dominance. Legions rock as they cost 50% less and have 2 more strength. Ballista aids conquest further.

a unique ability that is no particularly fun and fairly average makes it an unappealing civ. at least if the production bonus was for every building then I would reconsider what I just said.
maybe someone has a strategy with them that is worth mentionning so please just stick to this.

UA is great. It provides a significant bonus if you compare it with factories, workshops etc. The simplest strategy as Rome is to conquer early, then rebuild your empire, then again go for conquest & so on.

 

[Olleus]

Well then http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439362 should help.

The UA from Rome is enormous, even more so now that production boosting buildings give extra raw production rather than just a % boost. If it was a 25% boost to every building it would be, hands down, the best UA out there. As it is, its still rather good.

The legion is not as ridiculously all conquering as in Civ4, but good none the less. The balista I agree is more lackluster, but they are good enough in combination with legions that you can hold off steel/machinery for longer than you would normally dare. This means you can then go for education and other very important science/gold techs

A simple strategy with Rome is:
Get Iron -> Kill nearest neighbour -> Get Balistas -> Kill second nearest neighbour -> Build settlers to fill the gap in your territory -> go vertical

Obviously go for liberty social policy wise. If you do this on continents, its worth killing everybody there before astronomy so you dont get the diplomatic penalties for being a warmonger with over civs.

As said above not the best Civ, but a sensibly solid one nonetheless. Don't underestimate the UU.

 

[Jim Bro]

Well then http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439362 should help.

The UA from Rome is enormous, even more so now that production boosting buildings give extra raw production rather than just a % boost. If it was a 25% boost to every building it would be, hands down, the best UA out there. As it is, its still rather good.

The legion is not as ridiculously all conquering as in Civ4, but good none the less. The balista I agree is more lackluster, but they are good enough in combination with legions that you can hold off steel/machinery for longer than you would normally dare. This means you can then go for education and other very important science/gold techs

A simple strategy with Rome is:
Get Iron -> Kill nearest neighbour -> Get Balistas -> Kill second nearest neighbour -> Build settlers to fill the gap in your territory -> go vertical

Obviously go for liberty social policy wise. If you do this on continents, its worth killing everybody there before astronomy so you dont get the diplomatic penalties for being a warmonger with over civs.

As said above not the best Civ, but a sensibly solid one nonetheless. Don't underestimate the UU.

Ok that's the answer I was looking for. i think the UA is probably better than i think. i'll give them a try again soon enough. thx.

 

[oopsy poopsy]

IMO the trick with Rome, for those casual to intermediate types (like me) is to avoid getting wonder happy (which primarily occurs in your capitol too). You have to leverage that UA and don't want to be putting off building your primary buildings in your cities 'cause you just have to finish the HG, then you'll build the library or whatever (that's a terrible example, but you know what I mean).

Frankly, I'm glad the Legion (Prats before 5) aren't the uber swords that conquer the early game anymore, they were so one-dimensional and powerful in previous civ games.

BTW, anyone know if the free buildings from wonders counts in the capitol now? For all my defending of them, I can't say I play as them too much (because I enjoy playing a level or two below what I can safely beat so I can wonder whore too ).

 

[jtb1127]

if you don't like the terminology, they have bad unique units and an average unique ability.

a unique unit that depends on resources
a unique unit that will likely be built once or twice
a unique ability that is no particularly fun and fairly average makes it an unappealing civ. at least if the production bonus was for every building then I would reconsider what I just said.

maybe someone has a strategy with them that is worth mentionning so please just stick to this.

These are just problems that stem from the whole unique abilities issue. They should make characteristics or traits like in IV. Abilities are so juvenile.

 

[Noatz]

Early iron as Rome is so strong that barely any civ can defend a rush made with it. This segues perfectly into a wide empire supported by the UA. From there its an easy ride into pretty much any win style you want (barring perhaps culture).

 

[Tabarnak]

Rome needs a buff. Everything is average about this civ.

PS: they are at the very bottom of my list along with the native american civs.

Americans own mp maps with 4 or more players and ruins enabled. +1 sight means 1 more turn to prepare a war, 1 more turn to dodge attacks. Buying cheap tiles is particulary strong especially for satellite cities. I got a few strong games with them.

Rome is top tier civ both for sp and mp mode. 25% discount for buildings(assuming you built them in cap first) can shave a lot of turns through the game. You can delay Steel since UUs can do the job until rifles.

Personnally, i think almost every civs are pretty well balanced. Some obvious ones like France are a bit dtronger, but not that much.

For each civ, the best way to play them is dig out their special abilities for your own profit.

 

[Babri]

These are just problems that stem from the whole unique abilities issue. They should make characteristics or traits like in IV. Abilities are so juvenile.

You should play cIV then. UAs are million times better than the copy paste traits. They are better for imersion, and most importantly they are unique & give some historical flavour unlike traits.

 

[aatami]

You should play cIV then. UAs are million times better than the copy paste traits. They are better for imersion, and most importantly they are unique & give some historical flavour unlike traits.

/sign
I absolutely loathe traits...

 

[That nerdy kid]

Many UUs depend upon resources. U must be unlucky that u did not get enough iron.

Early strong UUs are can are crucial for early dominance. Legions rock as they cost 50% less and have 2 more strength. Ballista aids conquest further.

UA is great. It provides a significant bonus if you compare it with factories, workshops etc. The simplest strategy as Rome is to conquer early, then rebuild your empire, then again go for conquest & so on.

actually, no. Rome's start locations don't put it near iron usually. abundant, legendary, strategic start, pretty much no matter what, Rome isn't near iron.

 

[Melchizedek]

I may not even build a single catapult because I usually start my games with the focus on expansion so ballistas are almost useless in my opinion.

They're useless because of how you usually start your games. So start your games differently.

 

[Babri]

actually, no. Rome's start locations don't put it near iron usually. abundant, legendary, strategic start, pretty much no matter what, Rome isn't near iron.

I never said that. Infact I play VEM in which iron is placed much better & more likely to be found.

 

[Becomedeath]

Rome needs a buff. Everything is average about this civ.

I once played with them (with abundant resources set on) and had only two irons.
I may not even build a single catapult because I usually start my games with the focus on expansion so ballistas are almost useless in my opinion.

What are your impressions on this?

PS: they are at the very bottom of my list along with the native american civs.

I'm sorry what game are you playing because it sure as heck isn't Civ 5. Cheaper buildings for all cities just because you pimped your capital, swordsman replacement and catapult upgrade for those ancient era conquests and if you're not at war your standing army can connect up your cities...

...you should play Civ 5 and stop playing whatever the heck it is that's given you this bizzare perspective.

 

[wannabewarlord]

Americans own mp maps

I am not sure, but I think when he said "native american" civs, he wasn't talking about George and his bunch. Ain't native them Americans

 

[jdolan1983]

I found rome early is pretty nice untill i started getting shafted by the french muskets

 

[Tabarnak]

I am not sure, but I think when he said "native american" civs, he wasn't talking about George and his bunch. Ain't native them Americans

Haha that's right. Does he mean that the Aztecs and Iroquois are bad? Well for mp games it's even worse sometimes than Americans! They can totally own the game with their very useful ealry UUs.