GEM: Leaders

[mitsho]

Public Fountains as a name would work, but it goes awfully close to the Garden, no? And I'd prefer to stay as close to the basic game as possible, especially with names, to keep the entrance bar for new players low.

I more and more like the Thermae as a Water Mill replacement. It does combine a production with a happiness building. But this then would be the first Building you'd buy in any city while still the chances are high that it doesn't exist in a conquered city (no rivers everywhere). Also, it works well with the UA that gives production (not benefits) in all cities but Rome. Roman cities would be beasts in building up the economy. I'd see something like (after Thal's new system)

Thermae
replaces Watermill
and
+ 3
+ 1
no river requirement

The only problem I see is that Rome imho should be the starting "conquest" civ just like Egypt is the civ for new players overall, and this UB could be played pretty wide...

As for the Dutch, I like any bonus that gives them yields on the luxuries themselves, as that entices them to build an empire "along the coast" and on different continents (and I hope we can introduce a better luxury spread all over the map-system).

The Merchant option is too strong since the Trade mission is balanced for one. That could give you much gold at once (instant = powerful, especially early on) and much over the game totally.

EDIT: Stalker0's idea works as well for me, since a) it's conquest oriented, b) markets/forum will be built early on by puppets so it's a building that doesn't require you to annex (which of course doesn't work with the proposed effect since that is not connected to puppet cities) and c) it fits with the idea of Romans as Social Innovators. Many of the civics can be applied to Roman Society and it did go from Tradition (Monarchy) to Liberty (Republic) to an Empire again, all the while being to a degree military oriented (Honor). So that fits. Maybe we can give it a double effect:

Forum
replaces Marketplace
,
+ 20 %
+ 1 on luxuries
+ 1 if city is puppeted
City doesn't increadse Social Policy cost if not occupied or puppeted

 

[Ahriman]

I'd be ok with this, but I'd keep the +1 food too.

The only problem I see is that Rome imho should be the starting "conquest" civ just like Egypt is the civ for new players overall, and this UB could be played pretty wide...

I don't understand this comment.

I like any bonus that gives them yields on the luxuries themselves, as that entices them to build an empire "along the coast" and on different continents

That sounds too close to England and the Steam Mill.

 

[pthmix]

Personally I think a unique Courthouse would fit their wide empire and conquest style best. Maybe something like:

Consulate:
- removes the occupied status from the city
- production cost is 20% (whatever value fits) lower
- zero maintenance
- plus 1
- can be build in any city (except puppets), including original cities (possible?)

I think this would really emphasize what Rome was good at: managing a huge empire.

I don't understand this comment.

I think mitsho means that Rome should be the go-to conquest-civ for new players, just like Egypt is the go-to civ for new players who like shiny wonders and hate unhappiness.

 

[sukritact]

There's one problem involving any UB that is intended primarily for puppeted cities. You never get to build them. You won't even realize if they are built if you aren't paying attention. It's a very passive thing. We'll have to keep that in mind.

 

[bagas12]

My ideas for some factions

I think rome should be a early agressive, expansionist power, who decay after some time.

My ideia of UA should be something like this.

Get X production in all Rome cities, for each puppet city captured by Rome. Lose the bonus after some tech in renaissance era.

This should make the Rome player be very agressive in the early game, try to expand and conquer as fast as possible, like rome did.

It would simulate the need of the slaves for Rome grow, the real "production" of Rome was the slaves the romans just sit there and drink wine and watch gladiators games .
It would simulate too the fall of Rome after some time, we loose the production bonus so the other civs get closer and closer, but we are still a great power.

Them to make this effective we need a early happines bonus, so a UB that gives more happines. The balista can go.

And of couse the legions should be buff to make the early game very very strong, but the late just meh.

The byz.

I think we should make them a "crusader civ", i know it was not, in fact a crusader in history.
But for gameplay reasons, i think a agressive religious civ is needed.

They already have 2 UU, just give them a UA with a free super Just War that give bonus to conquer enemy religions or whem you conquer a enemy city your religion become majoraty.

Sorry bad english

 

[Thalassicus]

I'm focused on big themes for Rome right now. What important characteristics or influences on history of the Roman civilization set it apart from others?

1. Engineering (UA)
2. Professional army (Legion)
3. Road building (Legion)
4. Assimilation
5. Colonization
6. ???

@bagas12
Welcome to the forums!

I agree with you that Rome should be an aggressive expansionist power. I'm thinking of making the Spanish the "religious conquest" civilization.

@mitsho
I really like your idea of Romans getting traits of civilizations they conquer, like constructing the unique buildings of defeated leaders. I think that might be difficult to accomplish, though. Uniques are pretty much hardcoded into the database.

@black213
I like the idea of Byzantium getting a free Great Prophet at Theology. Sadly, Firaxis did not write code to handle free great prophets, so they come without any religion attached.

@mitsho, Naeven
I want to keep Harun unchanged. He's consistently one of the most popular leaders in the mod. The luxury bonus represents Arabia's dominance of trade routes between east and west Eurasia for most of human history.

@Ahriman
I agree the best approach with Rome is to replace the Ballista with a unique building. There are so many good possibilities, but I'm focusing on broad themes for now. I want to find some important concept we can portray. The English had nothing to represent their role in the industrial revolution. What Roman concept is like that?

Something to point out is Legions build improvements twice as fast as workers, which is quite powerful on the march to future conquests. I think they'd be a lot better if forts were actually useful (Legions can build forts, something most people forget), but that's a whole other topic I'd rather not get into here.

 

[jma22tb]

Rome was built on the backs of others, so I think their UB should be focused on that with a unique Courthouse.

The building could be associated with Roman governors, who were in charge of basically running the province as its military commander, chief accountant, and the province's judge.

 

[SlothACID]

I totally agree with the unique courthouse idea and would like to see what we could do with it.

 

[mitsho]

I don't understand this comment.

Pthmix was correct, I see Egypt as the ideal starter civ. You get wonder bonuses as new players typically make the mistake of wanting to build all wonders and the UB helps in empire managment a lot. So if Egypt is the typically easy builder civ, Rome should imho be the typically easy conquest civ. And let's face it, there are difference is difficulty level for the civ. Some are easier to play, some are harder. And this is ok.

I'm focused on big themes for Rome right now. What important characteristics or influences on history of the Roman civilization set it apart from others?

1. Engineering (UA)
2. Professional army (Legion)
3. Assimilation
4. Colonization
5. ???

Colonization can be rather rephrased as Urbanization (and then again linked to the UA), while Assimilation is not really like assimilating various cultures into the Roman one. It rather refers to a acceptance of other cultures and having the Roman one on top of it. Like the fact that the Roman Emperors are refered to as Pharaos in Egypt, the various cult of Eastern Gods brought as far West as Britain by Roman Soldiers. What's the term for that? It's not assimilation? Is it the cultural equivalent to Henotheism? (which could be another "typically" Roman trait).

Another point in your list could be Social Adaptivity, showing Romes strength in adapting to new situation from Monarchy to Republic to Empire, and its strength to bounce back during the various crisises of the 3rd and later centuries AD.

As for specific buildings, I agree that a courthouse replacement is tricky, but it'd also be very unique... (and again, I'd call it villa).

@mitsho
I really like your idea of Romans getting traits of civilizations they conquer, like constructing the unique buildings of defeated leaders. I think that might be difficult to accomplish, though. Uniques are pretty much hardcoded into the database.

That UA would actually probably better fit with the Ottomans. In any case, I'd rather have it as a Wonder since it's not really an active trait (your list on page one).

@black213
I like the idea of Byzantium getting a free Great Prophet at Theology. Sadly, Firaxis did not write code to handle free great prophets, so they come without any religion attached.

To code it like that is ... mindboggling? A workaround would be to just give them some instant on Theology. But then I'd prefer lower amounts of on Basilicas, no?

@mitsho, Naeven
I want to keep Harun unchanged. He's consistently one of the most popular leaders in the mod. The luxury bonus represents Arabia's dominance of trade routes between east and west Eurasia for most of human history.

I agree, he's popular. But if you're talking about the Dutch, you necessarily need to talk about the Arabians as at the moment, their UA is very similar to the Arabian UB. And if we find it easier to find a new Arabian UB, then we can just shuffle around. But that's not the case I can think of a few ideas for the Dutch:

1. Durch East India Company: Buffed existing UA to 100 % : don't think that's overpowered
2. Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (I'd prefer that name in general): 1/3 upkeep on naval units, +1 on luxury and bonus ressources (Tall empire that can afford a large fleet and excels at money).
3. Flemish Masters/Golden Euw: 50% more likely Great artists, +2 base per city (something to point the Dutch towards cultural victory)
4. Progressive Society: What happens in A'dam, stays in A'dam. Amsterdam is known for its liberal society, for Weed, Mushrooms, Prostitution and LGBT Rights, etc.. This UA makes Social Policies cost 33% less after the Renaissance and gives instant when using up any Great Person.
5. Flatland Dwellers: +1 on flat terrain, -1 on hills (just a pun, not meant seriously)
6. Fear the Caravan: the camper is a civilian unit that if placed next to an enemy city, gives and to you. (Just another joke, guys. But you know the Dutch Airline:

Spoiler :

But in any case, in my opinion, the Dutch should be a Tal Empire civ that has a Financial AND naval bias.

 

[sukritact]

As for specific buildings, I agree that a courthouse replacement is tricky, but it'd also be very unique... (and again, I'd call it villa).

I'd still rather call it a Forum; a Villa was basically a summerhouse, not a place for any public political activity.

1. Durch East India Company: Buffed existing UA to 100 % : don't think that's overpowered
2. Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (I'd prefer that name in general): 1/3 upkeep on naval units, +1 on luxury and bonus ressources (Tall empire that can afford a large fleet and excels at money).
3. Flemish Masters/Golden Euw: 50% more likely Great artists, +2 base per city (something to point the Dutch towards cultural victory)

But in any case, in my opinion, the Dutch should be a Tal Empire civ that has a Financial AND naval bias.

Dutch East#1 still lacks a component for warmongers. It's no use if no one will trade with you at a reasonable rate.
Dutch East#2 seems rather like the Ottoman UA with the lower upkeep, and IMHO, seems rather passive in general.
Flemish Masters does show the cultural component currently missing, but it doesn't feel like it fits with the trading facet of the civ.

 

[mitsho]

I think some things are ok if they reward a certain playstyle. You could also say that Japan is useless if not played militarily. Doesn't mean you should. The same problem exists btw. with Arabia (you need to be able to sell the luxuries for it to be worth it). What makes it bad for Sweden is that its two unique units are geared for conquest. The Dutch have only the Sea Beggar which works well as a merchant raider on city states and as a explorer. Plus, the Polder is good enough for both

The thing is for #2 the Ottomans have no upkeep reduction at the moment (which is a problem), but I do see your point. As for the "trading facet", how would you represent that if not by a straight boost or something connected to open borders? It's quite difficult.

I guess one could do a special Golden Age (Golden Euw) that gives more great people, might work well with trading luxuries.

 

[Stalker0]

Another avenue for Rome when be a unique colleseum, afterall the current one is basically built on the Roman design.

Perhaps one that gives extra happiness or culture

 

[Thalassicus]

@mitsho
I agree. I believe the challenge of accomplishing a task should match its rewards. Some leaders require simpler strategies, so we do moderately well with them regardless of experience playing the leader. Leaders which need complex strategy are more challenging to learn, but when we master them, we're more successful than with leaders of less complexity.

You're right that "assimilation" usually refers to smaller cultures losing their identity and absorbing into a larger culture. This doesn't quite describe what the Romans did. They were generally okay with various cultures in the empire (with exceptions), and also borrowed culture and tech from many societies. I tried finding a more accurate word to describe this, but moved on to other things after half an hour of research.

Arabia (you need to be able to sell the luxuries for it to be worth it).

Arabia's trait gives +5% national income from all luxuries regardless of the source, so it's good for warmongers too. The Arabian trait basically encourages us to get as many resources as possible from everyone. The Dutch trait encourages us to sell as many as possible to everyone, giving +2 per luxury we trade away. The traits both involve luxuries, but provide very different effects (gold vs happiness), and encourage different styles of gameplay.

 

[Naeven]

Idea for America UA,
"Federal Constitution" - can create puppet cities from settlers.
Why? Peaceful rapid expansion beyond normal happy cap, fit with their theme. Changes gameplay & is unique. Representing every city as a state that governs itself.

 

[Ahriman]

Puppets still cost happiness, so I don't really see why that would be useful.

 

[Naeven]

Puppets still cost happiness, so I don't really see why that would be useful.

Puppets cost less happiness no? Or am I making things up.

 

[Thalassicus]

I updated the list in post #1 with some of the ideas so far. Some other interesting gameplay concepts I thought of are:

Colonization: cities start at era# population (ancient 1, classical 2, etc)
Some building with every specialist slot

I don't know which leader to put these on yet, but I'm continuing to think about it.

 

[Stalker0]

Puppets cost less happiness no? Or am I making things up.

In the immediate short term they do. But overall if you have the money to burn, annexing a puppet state and buying the happy buildings will ultimately provide more happy.

 

[Naeven]

In the immediate short term they do. But overall if you have the money to burn, annexing a puppet state and buying the happy buildings will ultimately provide more happy.

I find this argument pretty weak, obviusly this would result in more happiness, BUT that doesn't take into account what other things you could have bought with that gold instead (in GEM, there is always stuff to buy) + long term, your puppet cities will build happy buildings + the true value was getting more cities out earlier than other civs, resulting in more resources, land, and better spots + your getting more policies. Ultimately, you can annex it later if that city is really good.

I'm not saying do it, or don't do it. Just spewing random ideas that might get ppl to think in new directions. Puppet cities are kinda underused mechanic IMO atm.

Colonization: cities start at era# population (ancient 1, classical 2, etc)

I wouldn't mind having this in.
Could also be pretty cool to stick on a "Quest for the New World" naval wonder at Astronomy.

 

[jma22tb]

I know its a bit late to throw this in there, but America and Persia both have histories of beating up other nations that would qualify them as Coalition.

America is now a global imperial power that completely conquered a continent's worth of people, fought Mexico, Spanish Empire, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and is placing economic pressure on several nations. It can be argued that nobody has a more thorough grasp on the world than America currently has, comparing to every major power before them, including the British.

Persia conquered three ancient Mesopotamian empires, Egypt, and parts of Greece. They were considered to be a global power at the time.

I think Carthage and Sweden are better off where both of these are in Expansion, while America and Persia become coalitions.

If Coalitions focus on becoming Tall now it makes even more sense - Persia and America used loosely controlled territories, satraps and states, and cultivated most of its power in a "heartland." New York and the East Coast were, at one point, the height of industrial and economic power in the world. The heartland of Persia was where they had their wealth as well.

One could also argue that the Ottomans were far more imperial than the Germans. The Nazis and Kaiser Wilhelm were the only real German conquerors and since then Germany has been more of a builder state than a military one. The Ottomans dominated the Asia Minor region and for hundreds of years.