Leaders: BNW Adaptation

[bwoww78]

A unique building would be nice and I am no fan of the liburna either but that is not the point I am trying to make. The Romans offer an opportunity for a unique play style if we can make it work with just their ability I do not mind the liburna. The tall Rome wide empire will make Rome a unique experience, two special units at the same time won't. I still think that roads should send production back to Rome not gold, gold might be better late game but Rome needs to be strongest in the early game.

Agreed, a flavorful Rome would be: tall Rome & wide empire. As stated, with the current UA (-25% production of any building already in the capitol), you'll be buying the buildings in Rome that you want to cheaply produce in your empire. The more cities you have, the more this UA is a benefit. (Moreover, I think it also applies to puppets, so even a happiness hungry conquering Rome still benefits.)

So, with a solid UU Legion that BUILDS roads and is available EARLY (however the resource requirements work out), then a UA or a UB (it could follow the concept of "all roads lead to Rome" with something like "Milliarium Aureum") that provides + and/or + when cities are connected to the capitol sounds much more flavorful and unique for Rome than adding (even a buffed & early) naval UU.

 

[Naeven]

Rome:
UU: Legion
UB: Forum or other building with +
UA: All roads lead to Rome, for every city connected to Rome, Rome get's +1/+1.

This should make a Tall Rome, powered by the wide empire. And the UB helps with the wide.

 

[Wichtel]

If we want to go with a unique building the courthouse might be a good idea. The lex romana is the basis for the western judicial system and was still in effect centuries after Rome's fall. We make it build able everywhere and give it an additional effect so its useful. Rome should not just built up it should be aggressive as well. A better courthouse will make early conquest more attractive even if we lose the second unit.

 

[Ahriman]

Some thoughts on the personalities:
A number of personalities don't seem to fit the unique features very well.

For example:
A science victory now favors Tall civs, because of the per city science modifier. So civs like Babylon will be much more effective as an Apollo/Diplomat than as a settler spammer.

Persia's effect revolves around golden ages, which require excess happiness, but if they're settler spamming then they're not going to have much excess happiness.

The Netherlands with its coastal food production will be favoring Tall/Naval and with its gold should probably favor coalition with city state alliances rather than settler spam.

Venice as a conqueror is going to cripple itself in science if it keeps picking up puppets that it can't annex, with the science penalty. It probably needs to be a coalition or diplomat player. It will have the trade route gold to get city state allies.

Montezuma could easily move coalition -> conqueror if needed to balance out numbers.

Indonesia probably makes more sense as an expansionist, they have extra happy, and they need more cities in order to use their UA. This would also help to balance numbers.

Incas could easily be expansionist, they get cheap roads to support a wide empire.

 

[Alteris]

You can't tie a UA to puppet cities because you are not supposed to keep those. As soon as you can switch to an annexed+courthouse you should do that. This means that for this civ, puppeted cities need to be BETTER than annex+courthouse. So it's a grand-scale rebuilding alike Venice. Sure, it's doable, but I can't think of a good way to do that...

Ah, that's right, thanks for jogging my memory on why that was from when I brought this up before. It's a shame because it's such a historically appropriate dynamic. I've been wanting to think up something doable and that's a good fit for Persia historically and thematically (golden ages), so I'll just have to keep thinking for the time being.

 

[Tomice]

hmm, looks good. Can we try it? Can we try it? Can we try it?

Yes, please! Actual gameplay will change our viewpoint massively. It doesn't make sense to discuss things over and over without ever trying a thing!

@Tomice
Changed Carthage back to turn-1 civilian embarkation.

Wow, they are insanely powerful now (on Communitas maps)! I'd love to try them out. They might turn out overpowered, but who cares for a game or two?

It looks odd that Carthage lacks a naval UU while Rome has one. Rome is better suited for wide style UB while Carthage could get their naval UU back with some awesome change to make it interesting. It will also make a good synergy with overall Carthage theme.

We talked about it before, he wanted to avoid making them a water-only civ.

 

[Myrion]

I think Austria needs a second thought since their UA itself is anti-synergetic. If you buy up CS allies you won't win diplomaticly, because you won't have CS allies. Would it be possible to somehow keep the +delegates from allies for a diplomaticly married CS? That way the UA would actually help them to achieve their victory instead of hindering it.

Mongolia can bully any CS. Does that mean that with the corresponding autocracy tenet they get +6 influence every turn with every CS? That might as well be the easiest and possibly unintenionallest diplomatic victory ever...

Edit: Also, since CEP grants you about 50% more social policies, Polands UA really decreases in value. How about adding a bonus for every social policy (+1 Happiness for every two social policies would be appropiate for the name "Solidarity"). Maybe give the Ducal Stables +2 culture upon researching Archeology for increased synergy.

 

[Tomice]

Since we don't have enough suggestions for the Romans yet, here's mine

Concept:

• Wide/Tall hybrid. Mighty capital, many smaller cities.
• Conquest-oriented
• Good infrastructure

Unique ability:

• 20% discount on buildings that already exist in the capital
• NEW: 1 food in the capital for every Roman city connected to it by road or harbor

Unique unit (Legion):

• First strike promotion (throwing spears before combat - "hastae")
• Cover promotion (turtle formation - "testudo")
• Builds roads and forts
• Comes earlier (bronce working)

Unique building - "Castra":

• Replaces barracks
• Wikipedia: Link
• Adds 1 production for every other Castra that exists in the Roman empire (while producing military units)

Summary:
The vanilla Romans aren't bad, no need to change everything. Their vanilla UA already works well to create a hybrid between tall and wide which both fits them well and is quite popular as a concept AFAIK.
The Legion is iconic, and the roadbuilding a nice gimmick. The two promotions I suggested seem more interesting than a straight strenght bonus and are historically justified. I suggest 2 free iron under the capital to make us able to actually build them early and often enough (similar to what many civs with ressource-needing UU's got in GEM). Earlier Legions , like Thal suggested, are interesting as well.
Regarding the Liburna, I'm not totally against it. But similar to many here, I'd find an UB more fitting. The Roman military camps are very well-known, and a production bonus for all military units seems like a good addition to their concept. The bonus would increase the bigger their empire becomes, rewarding expansion and conquest. Shipbuilding would be affected, so they'd be stronger on water as well, even without Liburnae.

 

[Hawawaa]

(epic narrator voice) "MEANWHILE SOMEWHERE FRIDAY AT 12AM" F5 F5 F5 F5...

 

[Splink]

Yeah the time difference in Australia is rough - half the day is gone before I can get to try new updates!

 

[Gothic_Empire]

F5

f5

f5

 

[tedoll78]

I'll be F5ing tonight. Great timing for this big release, as this is my first weekend off in over a month.

- Friday night: Install new files, watch football, clean house, sleeeeeeep..
- Wee hours of Saturday morning: start Marathon CEP game (OCC/huge map/18 civs/24 city-states)
- nap for a few hours on Saturday night..
- play second half of game all day Sunday, concluding sometime that evening.

It's gonna be glorious.. glorious!

 

[Tomice]

Oh yes, I checked his page 10 times already, too

It's already evening here, so I fear I won't see the update before going to bed...

 

[Hawawaa]

I'd imagine Thal codes like this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBX6cAtpkC8

 

[Jdoug312]

The update won't be coming tonight. Sometime next week is the new estimate.

 

[tedoll78]

Life getting in the way of gaming? Sounds very familiar.

This'll give me a chance to play around with different AI flavors for one more game, hehe..

 

[black213]

In my opinion the Shoshone should lose the defense bonus: their land grabbing ability is already strong as it is and the Pathfinder is good as well.
And it makes Ethiopia's UA look bad, they get a slightly better defense bonus (a whole 5%) but it comes with the requirement of having less cities than the opponent.

 

[Homusubi]

Your changes for England seems pretty strange to me. I'm from England, and being in control of the sea has been far more important to us historically than the Industrial Revolution. Over the 1700s, England essentially stifled the Netherlands, the other historical naval power, and built the largest empire in history. (At this point I have to say that I am by no means a patriot - I'm a Japanophile, and those two 'policy trees' are mutually exclusive). As for the Industrial Revolution, we didn't industrialise that much earlier than Belgium. Yes, you read that correctly, Belgium.

Keep the Ship of the Line and buff the UA to have something more than simple movement.

 

[Alteris]

With sea trade being an element now, I second that it doesn't make sense for England to not have something benefitting that, whether that be the UA or the building. As I noted before the English were the masters in all of history on that matter. It's what made that nation's place in history.

 

[jwerano]

In my opinion the Shoshone should lose the defense bonus: their land grabbing ability is already strong as it is and the Pathfinder is good as well.
And it makes Ethiopia's UA look bad, they get a slightly better defense bonus (a whole 5%) but it comes with the requirement of having less cities than the opponent.

I find ethiopia's combat bonus far more versatile and better than the shoshone's. The ethiopian bonus gives a 20% bonus when fighting units from a civ with more cities meaning it can be used offensively as well. So not only can you be impregnable with it but you can raze enemy cities with the bonus up til the point when you have an equal number of cities crippling them til they are no longer competitive in the game. With CEPs recent bonus to pillaging it also becomes possible for your tall ethiopia to decimate and pillage the armies and lands of ANY civ with just 1 more city than you and walk away with some nice gold. Or against wide opponents you can cherry pick cities and bypass the useless ones with your amazing combat bonus. Or you can sell the less valuable cities back to your enemy or to an opponent who isnt competitive to win the game with it to keep your city number small to preserve your bonus and get some gold. Ethiopias ability is really powerful and strategic when you realize all the offensive potential.

Also stele is an incredible UB. Cheap early faith in all cities. +6-8 faith in your 3-4 city tall empire instantly constructed through the tradition tree beats early game pathfinder bonuses in the long haul.

Maybe shoshone could lose a few tiles off their land grab ability though