Is Rome best Civ for me?

[MightyMite]

I think my game style is really really wierd. Anyway,I will do my best to describe my playing style so you could help me.

- 1st city,I build: 1. Warrior, 2. Settler., 3. Worker, 4. Great Libery
- Policy: Liberty (free settler and Worker rush) and Tradition.
- Technology: I rush for Great Libery.
- I mostly have happiness or gold problem,so I always do at least 4 trade routes. And if I'm desparate I build circus and colloseum.
- I connect my all cities with capital.
- I have max 4-5 cities. Really depends on lot of things. I like to have 3 "normal" cities with most possible number if items. If I'm close to sea I build one on coast,and if there is chance,I build one city next to mountin,to build that astronomy stuff building,which gives me a lot of technical points.
- I don't like wars,I only deffend myself. I'm trying to be friendly/neutral with all.
- My favourite part of the game is accient and classical era.
- I usually deffend myself with 4 archers and 4 warriors in first 2 eras (more if I get Mongols,Germany or England close to me).
- If there is chance of someone attacking me,it will be good to build army as soon as possible.
- I really like to dominate in Classical era,but I don't want my Civ to lose a lot of power in later-game (After classical era).
- I want to be in the middle of technology stuff,I don't wanna be overpowered.
- I don't wanna play overpowered/underpowered Civ. I like balanced Civs.
- I mostly play Continents or Continents Plus map,huge,with low sea level and balanced strategy recources.

Now,last I tried Egypt. They are very good for me also,but I think Rome is little bit better.

 

[Vikingr]

I'd say that if you like ancient and classical that Rome should probably be a good one for you. Though I suppose any ancient and classical-geared civ could work for you like the Celts and Carthage. Rome's UA is kind of universal so I guess you could say it's balanced.

Since you seem to emphasize defense, something that may help you with being Rome is that you could make Legions--they can build roads and forts. Maybe you could have them create forts along your borders and make roads and if they spot barbarians or enemies coming, at least they can stand their ground. So they're essentially a worker and a good fighting unit put into one. In the Fall of Rome scenario I used Legions to create forts for themselves along my borders, since workers were fewer and farther between in the empire. It became quite helpful. Mind you, I was just playing it on a lower difficulty because I hadn't played the scenario before, but still.

The only thing is that being a huge map, Rome might not be the best because Rome in the early game, I think, should try to expand militarily--hence the versatility of the Legions, so they can fight and work farther from home, and the ballistae. On a huge map I expect that there would be plenty of peaceful expansion first (I don't think I've played on a huge map yet though--it could depend on how many civs you put in too).

Not sure if this helps but cheers.

 

[eisforeccentric]

Have you looked at Greece? Their UA would help deal with the happiness and wealth problems you talked about, and it helps them remain relevant for the game's duration, helping set up a diplo win - which encourages playing nice with other civs. With two early UUs, their army is strongest in the ancient/classical eras should you choose to go to war.

 

[Vikingr]

Have you looked at Greece? Their UA would help deal with the happiness and wealth problems you talked about, and it helps them remain relevant for the game's duration, helping set up a diplo win - which encourages playing nice with other civs. With two early UUs, their army is strongest in the ancient/classical eras should you choose to go to war.

I had forgotten to mention Greece. I haven't played as them yet but have been wanting to, so I shall start a new game with them.

 

[eisforeccentric]

If you have the Inca DLC, you might also like them. Their hills bonus helps with the defensive game.

 

[MightyMite]

I had forgotten to mention Greece. I haven't played as them yet but have been wanting to, so I shall start a new game with them.

Greece is really pain in the a**. But if you tell me they are good,I'll try them.

 

[Ryika]

Your strategy sounds really... suboptimal.

Overall I'd say Egypt is probably a better Choice than Rome, over the curse of the game at least. If you stay on 4-5 Cities for the Rest of the game, then the UA doesn't really kick in that much, but the Wonder-Bonus will be really nice - not only for World Wonders, but also for National Wonders, which are quite expensive if you have 5 cities but still worth it - the Egypt-UA will be of great benefit then.

The Burial Tomb can be useful to get additional happiness early on, although it's probably low priority, if you don't focus on faith overall.

 

[Vikingr]

Greece is really pain in the a**. But if you tell me they are good,I'll try them.

I've never played as them yet so I couldn't tell you lol but from the looks of it their UA is pretty nice and could help you all game long I expect. And given that their unique units are both ancient/classical, you might like that. Of course so are Rome's UUs. And both Rome and Greece's UAs seem like they could still be helpful all game long. I'll definitely have to try out Greece soon though.

 

[Dr. D]

I wouldn't recommend Rome for your playstyle. Rome is best when conquring and going wide, neither of which you say you like to do.

If you like the ancient and classical time periods and like building wonders, Egypt is perfect for that. If you like to build archers and play defense, go with Babylon. You said you don't want to dominate science, but if you're not beelining science buildings and micromanaging things I'm guessing it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Greece is also an option.

I'd recommend not building warriors and do a scout instead. Four warriors sounds like too many... your starting warrior should suffice with your archers and maybe a horse unit.

 

[eisforeccentric]

I do have a question OP. Why do you take liberty first?

 

[MightyMite]

Free worker and settler,which is good couse I rush for first 5 cities,and then I have small empire for a really long time.

 

[eisforeccentric]

I see. If I might make a suggestion, for your next game, whichever civ you choose to play as, try taking Tradition first and completing that tree before going on to any of other trees. You mentioned you usually combine Liberty and Tradition, but hear me out.

With Tradition, you'll be growing culturally, and with Legalism, you'll be making at least as much culture when you have 4 cities (+3 from Tradition, and +1 from each of the free monuments in your first four cities - unless you hard build a monument in any cities before Legalism, in which case you'd get +2 once you reach Drama & Poetry from the free amphitheater) as you would with +1 from each of your 5 cities on a straight Liberty start. Further work in Tradition would help with your aforementioned happiness and gold issues, and the finisher helps with further growth in your first 4 cities. As for your 5th city, you would have to hard build everything, as the bonuses would not affect that city, but you can offset that if you find a good production location. You might even find that a 5th city is unnecessary.

With regards to your worker and settler rush, Liberty does help with that (and the Pyramids are a nice wonder to have), but with Tradition, once the policies kick in, your capital will grow, which leads to more tiles (i.e. production) and therefore faster build times for those units. If anything, you can steal a worker from a CS and sue for peace. The CS will get over it eventually.

As Dr. D suggested, Rome is best played wide, and if you're only going to build a few cities, the UA doesn't quite have the kick that it's intended to have.

 

[Halcyan2]

Yeah, with two Classical and aggressive UU's, I don't think Rome is the optimal civ for your peaceful style of play.

 

[Vikingr]

Well I'm well into my first game as Greece. Not my first Civ V game, but my first as Greece.

I decided to try things differently. Usually I build a worker and warrior or something pretty quick, then get a 2nd worker from the policy. However this time around I didn't get workers automatically but built the pyramids so I got 2. Then, I did the policy where you get the free settler. I did also make a settler but I don't think I've ever gotten the policy for the free settler before.

Right now it's in the Renaissance era and I have Athens, Sparta, and Corinth made. I just took over a city too, so I have 4 cities. Not sure if this is good/good for Greece but it's working. Strangely, given Greece's UA, I only met my first city state not a terribly long time ago. I was hoping I'd have some closer by with which I could get alliances with. But it has been easy to become allies with them.

I think Greece may be good for the OP. The Hoplites and Companion Cavalry seem quite efficient in defeating enemies and could work well for defending against barbarians but also any aggressors. The UA would allow a more peace-minded player to secure good relationships with city states. Of course other civs are more of a concern with keeping the peace (has anyone seen a city state really do much outwardly? lol) but still.

Though I'm sure there's other civs with better UAs for this.

 

[eisforeccentric]

Off the top of my head, Greece and Siam are the two most user-friendly peaceful CS-based civs with early game bonuses. I think Greece is the easier of the two to manage because of the UA's effect on influence. I'm not sure if it stacks with the Patronage opener, but if it does then a diplo victory would be quite easy. Siam's UU and UB don't come in until the early-mid game, but the UA also jives with the OP's desire to play friendly. 1.5x the normal CS bonuses? Sign me up!

 

[eisforeccentric]

Another couple civs Mighty and Viking might want to look at are Sweden and Byzantium. They operate a little differently than you might be used to, but they (especially Sweden) can be used peacefully. Like Siam, Sweden's UUs come much later than the Ancient and Classical eras, but the Carolean is quite effective should you want to go to war, and the Hakkapeliitta can sometimes be useful is a GG ferry. Once again though, the UA sets you up for a diplo win. Just farm Great People and gift them to CS just before a leader vote.

Byzantium requires a little more work (and luck). To take advantage of the UA you have to find/generate a lot of faith very quickly, and you have no bonuses to help you with that. But if you're able to do that and nab an early religion, you can customize that religion to suit your playstyle. You get your UUs early, and while the Cataphract is a bit blah, the Dromon is quite good. Your opponents will have no answer for it for quite a while.

Of course there are other civs out there that you might find work better for you (Venice, Ethiopia, maybe BNW France), but I'd give the civs already mentioned at length in this thread a shot first. Who knows, maybe you'll find something that works well for you with trial and error? Just have fun with the game.

 

[Redaxe]

I want to try a Rome game where I beeline straight to Ironworking, build heroic epic then pump Legions out like crazy. Being such a high Strength rated unit it gets the most out of the Morale bonus.

To the poster above I agree about Byzantium, I try to like them but its just so hard to play this Civ to its fullest. The problem is to focus on Cataphracts requires early Horseback Riding, religion often requires a rush towards Philosophy & Theology. To do a naval game with dromons takes you to Sailing & Optics.
The problem with this is there is never enough time to focus on all of these 3 uniques of your Civ without compromising something.
So I play Byzantium with one of the mods that gives the capital 2 faith per turn. I feel it does make for a more balanced game

 

[Vikingr]

I have played as Byzantium only in the scenario and played as Sweden a couple times, once more of a real game, and the second time I started in the most modern times just for fun. In the first game I'm not sure I ever got to use Sweden's UUs in battle. Maybe against the odd barbarian. Same with Greece here. I used a couple units of Hoplites and a unit of Companion Cavalry to great effect over numerous barbarian camps and units, but my first war hasn't been until the Renaissance, in which I've used pikemen, longswordsmen, crossbowmen, knights, trebuchets, and musketmen (upgraded from longswords) but it's funny how behind or ahead of the times you can get in this game.

 

[Strategist83]

Terrible strategy, OP. Rome isn't meant to have 'max' 4-5 cities. You should take Ryika's advice and try Egypt instead (even though Egypt is supposed to build more cities, as well).

Also, mixing Tradition and Liberty is idiotic even if I know many here think it's a great thing to do.

 

[Vikingr]

Terrible strategy, OP. Rome isn't meant to have 'max' 4-5 cities. You should take Ryika's advice and try Egypt instead (even though Egypt is supposed to build more cities, as well).

Also, mixing Tradition and Liberty is idiotic even if I know many here think it's a great thing to do.

I think he already said he's been playing as Egypt

One of the policy trees is supposed to be for smaller empires and the other for larger ones, right? So it does initially seem kind of strange to mix them. Though as it is i've put most into liberty and just one into one of the first Tradition things--don't remember what it was but it seemed like it would be helpful regardless.