Is the Roman Empire too weak in Civ 5?

Is rome too weak in civ 5?

  • Yes rome is way too weak. The greatest empire ever should be buffed.

    Votes: 33 19.2%
  • No Rome isn't too weak. It is about right. Not too strong but not weak by any means.

    Votes: 108 62.8%
  • No Rome is actually really strong in Civ 5 and a top tier Civ.

    Votes: 28 16.3%
  • Yes Rome is very weak in Civ 5 and I am glad. I am sick of it always being OP in Civ.

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • Total voters
    172
I voted "No Rome is actually really strong in Civ 5 and a top tier Civ." because it is not actually the UA or UU which makes a civilization weak or strong. It`s the player.

Rome`s UA is actually fine. I also think their UU has a quite nice ability.
 
I voted "No Rome is actually really strong in Civ 5 and a top tier Civ." because it is not actually the UA or UU which makes a civilization weak or strong. It`s the player.
Wouldn't that make every civ top tier? :)


I like Rome's UA. I find it's pretty balanced, and gives them a nice expansionist flavour. I really thought it was going to be OP, but I didn't consider that half of the stuff that you produce is made with gold. What I don't like is how they go completely hysterical for an era of the game, and feel a bit bland outside of it, but that's more of a personal preference.
 
Wouldn't that make every civ top tier? :)

Their UU/UA is quite powerful in the hands of a player who knows how to use it. And yes, almost every civ is top tier. You might think America is pretty bad but +1 improved sight can be quite an advantage.
 
Their UU/UA is quite powerful in the hands of a player who knows how to use it. And yes, almost every civ is top tier. You might think America is pretty bad but +1 improved sight can be quite an advantage.
The point of tiers is a direct comparison of civs, not looking at each civ individually. How does America compare to +20% build speed in other cities, or +2 culture per city, or +50% golden age length and better golden ages?
 
"Greatest empire" my foot. Rome did a lot of impressive things, but it's not like their military was any more godly than the successes of the greeks/mongols/british/etc at different periods in history.
Most people at this point would usually highlight Roman longevity and empire-building rather than their military. :p
 
Most people at this point would usually highlight Roman longevity and empire-building rather than their military. :p

True enough, after all if you want to get technical the Roman empire lasted until 1453 AD! (fall of Eastern Empire)
 
Depends on the setting, I suppose. Getting Iron Working and getting Legions online can be enough overkill to punch out an AI. You could punch out another AI, though I'm not entirely sure that's a sound plan if the AI is already not going to be a threat.

I usually take one AI down with Warriors, one with Swords and one with Longswords on a Standard map. The settings do matter; as your neighbors become closer, early advanced military techs become more valuable.
 
I seem to play an agressive style when playing Rome. I'm playing Shigg's earth (on Prince) at the moment and went at the AI civs like a maniac. A bit like I would have done in BTS, in fact. It feels the same to me.
 
I feel people underestimate the usefullness of the UA because it is unspectacular. Something taking 24 turns instead of 30 isn't 'wow, that won me the game' but it definately adds up.
Also, not much can stand up to a Legion/Ballista army.

A note of critique to the start bias though: from what I read the start bias for Rome is a start near river, which is nice historically (the river Tiber, iirc?) but really the built-in bias here should be 'Iron in capital range' or something. True, you don't need iron to be dominant (yay horses) but playing Rome without Iron isn't much fun.

My 2 :commerce:
 
"Greatest empire" my foot. Rome did a lot of impressive things, but it's not like their military was any more godly than the successes of the greeks/mongols/british/etc at different periods in history.

Besides, they're not unreasonably weak. If there weren't a couple broken civs sitting at the top of the OP food chain rome wouldn't seem weak by comparison, either.

Rome could hold it's huge empire though. The Greek Empire and Mongol Empire split up in a very short time, and the British lost control of it's empire and were beat by a militia even.
 
True, you don't need iron to be dominant (yay horses) but playing Rome without Iron isn't much fun.

Absolutely, I was playing Rome the other day and was found myself an a small continent (continents map) and the only iron I could claim was on the other side and it was only 2 iron. It immediately became a boring game.
 
Rome could hold it's huge empire though. The Greek Empire and Mongol Empire split up in a very short time, and the British lost control of it's empire and were beat by a militia even.

Oh, certainly. Of course, keep in mind that that militia was on home turf, while King George was having to divert troops from a war front and sail them 3000 miles away.

Of course, I'm a historian that loves both the Roman and British Empires, so I'm torn either way ;)

Now then, on-topic, I voted #2. I've mucked around with a few Civs now, forced mostly by Steam achievements, but I keep coming back to Rome. Their Unique Units allow for you to earn some really nice early elbow room, and then to peacefully build up that corner of the world you've carved out for yourself. Also very historically accurate too, as the Romans went to great lengths to mimic the functionality and luxury that Rome enjoyed in their colonies. Trying to civilize the world and all that.
 
The year is 1575 on my (Prince) game and the Roman Empire Stretches from Lyon on the Atlantic to Siam's capital (can't remember name off hand) on the Pacific coast. I have totally killed Germany & France and have added 7 capitals to my collection. Haven't got rifles yet though.

Rome doesn't feel underpowered in the slightest.
 
I think it's well balanced, not OP and not weak at all...

But can I smile when I hear people comparing the Roman Empire to the Greek/British/Mongol's E.? No offence of course ;) But I strongly agree with what someone already posted above, the latter only lasted for some decades (the British E. maybe a bit more), the Roman E. two millennia if you consider that the Eastern E. survived till 1453AD...

That's said, I agree that this shouldn't influence the game and all the factions should be balanced
 
It's pretty good. I am on my third game with Romans (2 first crashed repeatedly at around 280 turns) and although I'm not as rich as Chinese og Happy as Indian, the production bonus is really cool. I mean 25% production bonus for all other citys aslong as you build the buildings in your capital first. That adds up and is pretty nice.
 
But can I smile when I hear people comparing the Roman Empire to the Greek/British/Mongol's E.? No offence of course ;) But I strongly agree with what someone already posted above, the latter only lasted for some decades (the British E. maybe a bit more), the Roman E. two millennia if you consider that the Eastern E. survived till 1453AD...

Greece empire of course didn't last (chronologically) as the Roman but Greek influence in science, philosophy, democracy, architecture, literature, sports, drama-comedy and so on are everywhere still today...
 
Rome too weak?

- Go for liberty and spam as many cities as you can. Take the +1 production per city bonus.

- Beeline Metal Casting and purchase a workshop in your capital. Build a workshop in every city after this and as a first build in all new cites.

- Run an engineer specialist in every city.

+50% production for every building, and 4 free hammers (+1 from the liberty tree, +3 from the engineer towards buildings).

This gets even better on coastal maps with Merchant Navy - +4 prod per coastal city and +2 from engineer +50% = +9 free prodution towards any building already in your capital.
 
Back
Top Bottom