Is it just me, or does the Roman UU seem overpowered?

[DarkSchneider]

Most of the UU in the game seem pretty bland, sure they're better than their counterparts, but most of them are like their counterparts with 2-3 promotions. What's more, a number of them come too late in the game to help you, or become obselete too quickly.

With the exception of the Indian worker, the Roman UU (Pratorian) is the only UU that I think makes a significant impact on the game. It's exteremly cheap to build, makes a number of the early units obselete, and with 8 power, is just 1 shy of the early gunpower unit.

Any thoughts?

 

[Shillen]

I think it's great. If I have Rome on my border at the start of a game then I'm scared. It makes the game more fun, I think.

 

[Heroes]

With the exception of the Indian worker, the Roman UU (Pratorian) is the only UU that I think makes a significant impact on the game.

So what's your idea about Indian worker, is it great or awful?

 

[marcusbrutus]

it would seem more congruous with the other UUs to make the praetorian 7 instead of 8 versus 6 swordsman. the only offset i can think of is that expansive and organized are 2 of the weakest civ traits.

 

[fightcancer]

So what's your idea about Indian worker, is it great or awful?

It's great!

 

[Heroes]

It's great!

Why a movement 3 worker great? I didn't try India, so I don't know what it does. Double the speed of improvement? Otherwise it seems not useful.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Actually, I think Expansive is probably one of the strongest traits, although I agree that Organized is among the weakest. As for the Indian worker, I'm sure that the speed will be helpful when cutting down jungles, and building roads through forests, and in the beginning when roads only allow you to move at 2x speed.

Expansive is among the strongest because every town needs a granery, and expansive gives you one for half cost, and your towns will be able to support 2 more ppl (in general) than non-expansive Civs.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I think it's great. If I have Rome on my border at the start of a game then I'm scared. It makes the game more fun, I think.

The game I'm playing now is like that - Rome had Iron in their territory too. I built a second city and chopped up my forests to rush a bunch of chariots...no more Rome. Killed them before they could get their Praetorians.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

the only offset i can think of is that expansive and organized are 2 of the weakest civ traits.

I'm finding it very hard to live w/o Expansive! That trait is addicting. Half-price granerys, and the +2 health is awesome. A lot of my cities don't need Aquaducts due to this.

 

[abbamouse]

There's no real problem with the Praetorian. It's just that the other UUs are too weak or bland. I like to play Mali, but the Skirmisher is worthless.

 

[Shillen]

I think the Aztec Jaguar is good too. I played one prince game where from the start of the game all I did was build military units in my capital the entire time. I never built a worker or a settler. I then sent my units one at a time south towards enemy cities and declared war on all of them. My warriors would usually die to barbs before they even reached an enemy city hehe. Then once I researched archery I started sending archers and losing them just as much. Then I got my jaguars, which didn't require any iron to hook up. So I started building those like crazy and sending them south. Capture an Indian city and fought off a lot of AI units coming to take my city. It took the AI until 800AD to finally wipe out my capital with their keshiks and war elephants.