My Unique Powers judgement

[Phallus]

Oh no, I think the Spanish UP is fine when I'm not a victim of it.

Malinese - The power of wealth, +1 trade on each land plot
Quite nice and I have nothing to say bad against it. It's not that overpowered (considering the Inca get +2 FOOD and +1 HAMMER from the terrain that covers about 50% of their region). Without it, the Malinese couldn't complete their goals

Their UP is fine but their UHV is not. To achieve the goals you simply have to cripple (or completely halt) your research and focus on nothing but wealth. This is very inaccurate and completely ignores the scholarly fame they achieved throughout the Islamic world and beyond. Perhaps their third goal should be some sort of "every city has a library, university and mosque by ____"?

Mongolians - The power of the horde, a razed city makes a nearby enemy city surrender
I must admit I have never seen the Mongolians in action with this power and I don't really know if it's that good but it seems overpowered - but that is approtiate, the Mongolians were overpowered warriors

Nor have I, but judging by what other people have said, it's not a very good power as you just go scouting for the biggest city to destroy rather than rampaging around the place scaring people into submission as you rightfully should.

 

[Blasphemous]

myriad means 10000 and is commonly used instead of thousands in Chinese and Japanese languages

Indeed. I didn't know that, but dictionary.com says you're right. At any rate, this is the first place I recall hearing of this use of the word, so it may still not fit in so well in English. (In Hebrew I know the equivelant רבבה revava is used more often than I've heard its English counterpart.)

Besides, I generally find that distance maintenance is fairly slim when all your cities are on the same continent. Fer instance, distance maintenance for my Arabian empire (inclusive of everything from Morocco to Vietnam south of the Bosphorous and north of Mali) never had a city break 10 on the distance maintenance.
...
I'd be okay with a -75% to city maintenance (distance and # of cities), but distance alone would be a massive nerf when compared to the power of faster movement.

Well, in Pax Romana test games again and again we noticed that you could get a lot done but at some point you'd be running such a huge deficit you couldn't go any further... I guess total city maintenance would be fair, but I definitely think the UP should make the whole Empire thing financially viable... Further tweaking will be necessary to make Rome capable of developing its cities, because the Roman Empire was not only large but advanced and well-developed.

 

[SkippyT]

I propose The Power of Viae, with a new and improved implementation that I just thought of: -75% distance maintenance in any Roman city with no enemy units in it's radius
This is realistic on a few different levels

Agreed, that would make it possible for the Romans even to conquer GREECE!

Unless you're Spanish and sail away before they find you. Ironically England beat the Spanish Armada partly because our ships were smaller and faster.

...and the fact that the Spanish were considered to have the "strongest" navy in Napoleonic times

myriad means 10000 and is commonly used instead of thousands in Chinese and Japanese languages

Ok ..now I understand. And it does make sence that they have a larger military.. More boys = More warriors

Their UP is fine but their UHV is not. To achieve the goals you simply have to cripple (or completely halt) your research and focus on nothing but wealth. This is very inaccurate and completely ignores the scholarly fame they achieved throughout the Islamic world and beyond. Perhaps their third goal should be some sort of "every city has a library, university and mosque by ____"?

Yes, maybe. Then they wouldn't have to achieve their highest gold requirement, so they can quite relax. I like your idea about the third goal

edit: thanks for the responce

 

[SadoMacho]

...and the fact that the Spanish were considered to have the "strongest" navy in Napoleonic times

Realy? I know they had a big navy, but the strongest? After the armada was defeated by the English whom used fast, mobile ships and a new strategy, the strenght of the Spannish navy was broken for ever. But I could be mistaken.
By the Napoleonic times the Britsh Navy was stronger, as there was the continental blockade angainst France. The BBC made a nice series on this, "Hornblower", where the British navy is stronger than the Spannish, but it could take on the French and Spannish together.

 

[SkippyT]

Realy? I know they had a big navy, but the strongest? After the armada was defeated by the English whom used fast, mobile ships and a new strategy, the strenght of the Spannish navy was broken for ever. But I could be mistaken.
By the Napoleonic times the Britsh Navy was stronger, as there was the continental blockade angainst France. The BBC made a nice series on this, "Hornblower", where the British navy is stronger than the Spannish, but it could take on the French and Spannish together.

I am not 100% on this but the Spanish had a better navy, yes, but Captain Nelson defeated the Spanish at the naval battle of Trafalgar with stragedy. The Spanish were supposed to win because they were stronger and had a larger navy but the British won..and thereafter the British had the strongest navy in the world

As I say, I'm not certain about this, but quite certain

Sorry to all Brits if I'm wrong

 

[Phallus]

Nelson defeated the French at Trafalgar chiefly through strategy, but neither British nor French ships were better than each other at this time - we just had better Admirals.

 

[onedreamer]

The current power is correct only in that it makes the Roman system of Viae actually exist in-game. Beside that small grace, this UP is both underpowered and unhistorical (not to mention counter-productive for making the Roman UHV achievable.)

I'm curious...: why is the current roman UP unhistorical ? It is known that the Roman Empire had the best road system in the ancient age... and even later ages. And the road system wasn't "simply" designed to help trade but also military. In the Mediterranean Rome is in a central position and attackable on many fronts, to defend their territory (or strike their enemies) the legions needed to move fast as there simply weren't enough men to defend all borders extensively. And so it was: the Romans were definitely the civ that could move their legions faster than any other in that age.
Another question is why is it counter-productive for the UHV ?

 

[onedreamer]

I propose The Power of Viae, with a new and improved implementation that I just thought of: -75% distance maintenance in any Roman city with no enemy units in it's radius
This is realistic on a few different levels:

• Maintenance represents commerce going away from the routes which benefit central government. Viae reduced this significantly and made distance almost irrelevant (the Viae were so well-made that it was faster to go to Roma than to the city nearby, since the Via went straight from your city to Roma and the only way to follow the Viae to the next city over would be through Roma)

• 
  
  That does represent quite well distance from maintenance, but not maintenance in general, though as you specified the bonus is applied to the distance only, which in my opinion is almost useless for the case of Roman UHV (I will explain why after).
  
  

  [*]Many of Rome's wars were fought to keep trade flowing, so making the UP null and void where enemies are around would make Rome fight against them more

  
  Yeah but the enemy in range (eg: along borders) shouldn't threaten the commerce between the city and Rome, at least not enough to make the road completely useless, and if the enemy is inside roman territory, then it has a chance to pillage the road anyways.
  
  

  [*]This UP would not overpower Rome in a deterministic way.

  
  All in all I think it would underpower Rome because:
  1) the no enemy in range condition is too harsh considering you have to fight 3-4 enemy civs plus barbarians to achieve UHV, although it can become quite effective in late middle ages and on (in case you don't achieve UHV).
  2) the real problem of maintenance -I think- is due to number of cities. It is your goal to conquer as fast as you can to achieve UHV. This means that you will be busy producing military units and not the infrastructure to help your economy while costs for city maintenance increase.
  
  To counter this problem I think that the roman UP should be both military and economic. What about this:
  Military: The Romans are able to draft 1 Legion per turn in a city where they have majority of roman population until they enter the Middle Age. Too powerful ? Yeah probably... not sure. But somethiing along these lines should be thought IMO: Rome should have a UP that lets them be military strong while still giving them time to build the infrastructure, this at least in the ancient age...
  Economic/Viae system: +1 trade route in Rome for each city connected to the capital and -20% maintenance (global maintenance) for each city connected. All roads lead to Rome...

 

[SkippyT]

Nelson defeated the French at Trafalgar chiefly through strategy, but neither British nor French ships were better than each other at this time - we just had better Admirals.

"A Royal Navy fleet of 27 ships of the line destroyed an allied French and Spanish fleet of 33 ships of the line west of Cape Trafalgar in south-west Spain. The French and Spanish lost 22 ships, the British, none. The British commander Admiral Lord Nelson died late in the battle, by which time he had ensured his place as Britain's greatest naval hero."
- From Wikipedia

I didn't know about the French, though..

 

[SkippyT]

That does represent quite well distance from maintenance, but not maintenance in general, though as you specified the bonus is applied to the distance only, which in my opinion is almost useless for the case of Roman UHV (I will explain why after).



Yeah but the enemy in range (eg: along borders) shouldn't threaten the commerce between the city and Rome, at least not enough to make the road completely useless, and if the enemy is inside roman territory, then it has a chance to pillage the road anyways.



All in all I think it would underpower Rome because:
1) the no enemy in range condition is too harsh considering you have to fight 3-4 enemy civs plus barbarians to achieve UHV, although it can become quite effective in late middle ages and on (in case you don't achieve UHV).
2) the real problem of maintenance -I think- is due to number of cities. It is your goal to conquer as fast as you can to achieve UHV. This means that you will be busy producing military units and not the infrastructure to help your economy while costs for city maintenance increase.

To counter this problem I think that the roman UP should be both military and economic. What about this:
Military: The Romans are able to draft 1 Legion per turn in a city where they have majority of roman population until they enter the Middle Age. Too powerful ? Yeah probably... not sure. But somethiing along these lines should be thought IMO: Rome should have a UP that lets them be military strong while still giving them time to build the infrastructure, this at least in the ancient age...
Economic/Viae system: +1 trade route in Rome for each city connected to the capital and -20% maintenance (global maintenance) for each city connected. All roads lead to Rome...

About the maintenence thingy: Yes, the main thing about maintenence is the "number of cities". But let's put up an empire for one second.
I have 9 cities (capital counted in it) and therefor the average of what I have to pay for for "number of cities" is about 5.00 gold but then the average thing I have to pay for for "distance from palace" is 2.50 gold. 2.5 x 8 = 20 gold costs the "distance from palace" maintenence.
If we'd have a -75% cost from distance from palace Rome would only have to pay 5 gold! They'd save 15 gold which could mean a lot when researching and stuff. (20 x 0.75 = 15)
It wouldn't overpower things, but it's still not underpowered

 

[Aeon221]

SkippyT, your knowledge of naval affairs seems fairly limited.

Firstly, by the 18th century, the Spanish navy was a paper tiger.

Secondly, the Spanish ships at Trafalgar fought under the command of a French Admiral (Villeneuve), and at the behest of the French Emperor.

Thirdly, the French Admiral knew exactly what Nelson had planned. In fact, the British Admiralty engaged in a hunt for a French spy, so exact were his guesses.

Fourthly, the French and Spanish both had larger numbers of the 74s, the best and most modern ships available. However, the total size of the navies of both France and Spain were less than the total size of the British navy (over three hundred ships for the first time by the end of the Napoleonic Wars).

The sole British advantage was its crew. In every way, the crew of the English ships was superior. In gunnery, the Brits fired faster (2-3 times faster than their opposition) and more accurately than their rivals. Indeed, at Trafalgar, most of the French and Spanish ships attempted to board rather than engage in an artillery duel, as they knew they had no hope in an exchange of broadsides.

Furthermore, every sailor in the fleet Nelson commanded had seen several fleet actions. Few of the French sailors, and none of the Spanish, had ever seen a general engagement.

My sources for this are (of course) Mahan's second volume on seapower, and To Rule The Waves, by Arthur Herman.

That said, the Spanish should lose their naval bonus with the onset of Chemistry, or whatever gives Frigates. We should also add Ships of the Line, and reduce the strength of Frigates. They weren't main battle ships, and in most engagements were considered a liability rather than a strength. In scouting and anti piracy work they were considered essential, but in engagements, worthless.

EDIT: Once again, wikipedia is not a source. I could go in and type whatever the hell I wanted about any subject whatsoever, and then use it to back me up. Verify with Encyclopedia Britannica or something of that sort.

 

[Aeon221]

On topic, onedreamer's suggestions have my vote.

Absolutely excellent. First off, he and I are in total agreement that it is the number of cities, not the distance, that is crippling. 15gpt extra from a huge reduction in distance maintenance would be insufficient to cover # of cities maintenance, let alone power development.

Furthermore, the Roman military was initially civilian soldier, and later was extended to the majority of the populace (mostly the lower class). A draft of one legion per turn definitely exemplifies this usage of the people as a weapon of war, rather than a highly trained select few (as the Spartans, and the Feudal Europeans, did).

He also posits a situation where Rome benefits from expansion. +1 route per connected city? Put on the money hats! -20% corruption, in addition to this benefit, would certainly provide the economic muscle so sorely lacking in a large Roman empire.

I'd like to offer a final suggestion. Remove a few techs from the ancient era, or bump everyone up a tier. It is 3000BC: agriculture is already established in much of the world. Researching it is redundant and somewhat silly. And requiring that the Incans have the wheel to build roads is downright a-historical.

 

[kairob]

how about letting rome draft legionaries as defult dispite thier civics, this would increase thier troop numbers, then all you have to is give the legions their road building ability back to simulate that?

 

[SadoMacho]

Great idea Kairob.

 

[McA123]

That was part of onedreamers suggestion... But the road UP is WORTHLESS. It doesn't help the UHV at all, I never have time to build enough workers to make it worthwhile, and what roads i do have are often razed by barbs. The romans still need money.

 

[Aeon221]

You don't need to build them, you can just steal em from other people. I found it handy to camp the Egyptians for workers on occasion, but I'm probably not the best person to talk about UHVs, because I think they are silly and never go for em.

 

[onedreamer]

The draft of legionaries should be limited though, maybe 1 per city and 3 max per turn (like the civic) until the Middle Age.

 

[kairob]

I did meen just like the civic tbh so yeah limiting it does sound sensible

 

[SkippyT]

The drafting thing sounds interesting ..

 

[Blasphemous]

@onedreamer: my main point was that the system of Viae had a dramatic effect in solidifying the empire politically and making it financially viable to have such a large empire. The game does not reflect this so far, and it absolutely must somehow. As I have argued before (not in a while now), a new UP could do it, but really a column of Civics for expansion would do it better by making it actually profitable to put together such a large empire so early on (but later on less so).
The bottom line is that any solution which lets Rome conquer widely and still develop its cities handsomely is good, as long as it does not overpower Rome, making it a behemoth every single game, and indestructible as an unyielding human player (the AI will always lose empire because of the new spawns but a strong Rome with an anal-retentive player will use the spawn to actually grow.)

Yeah but the enemy in range (eg: along borders) shouldn't threaten the commerce between the city and Rome, at least not enough to make the road completely useless, and if the enemy is inside roman territory, then it has a chance to pillage the road anyways.

It's a symbolic solution. It's good not because it's exactly like reality; it's good because it creates realistic game dynamics: Rome makes a lot of money as long as it keeps enemies out. Once it can't keep them out anymore, it gets dirt-poor, very fast.

To counter this problem I think that the roman UP should be both military and economic. What about this:
Military: The Romans are able to draft 1 Legion per turn in a city where they have majority of roman population until they enter the Middle Age. Too powerful ? Yeah probably... not sure. But somethiing along these lines should be thought IMO: Rome should have a UP that lets them be military strong while still giving them time to build the infrastructure, this at least in the ancient age...

I like the idea of drafting save for one problem: creating an army should not make Roman cities small and unhappy. But if we do give Rome a draft UP, it should allow a lot of drafts per turn and expire when Legionaries obsolete.

Economic/Viae system: +1 trade route in Rome for each city connected to the capital and -20% maintenance (global maintenance) for each city connected. All roads lead to Rome...

I think I proposed something just like that back in Pax Romana testing. This is good save for the problem of overpowering: there is no real caveat. There is very little to limit this power. Remember, most of Rome's cities (in the empire, not in Italy alone) are coastal. It will be very rare that a city will be cut off from trade. All this will achieve is an extremely rich Rome that gets richer the longer it exists without needing to do much to keep this bonus going. This is exactly the kind of idea that the enemies-in-radius concept is supposed to improve upon. Maybe +1 and -20% total maintenance in cities without enemies within their radius... I really think making Rome need to keep enemies out is key to getting the right dynamics in. It's not enough to make Rome strong. Rome has to have incentive to strengthen itself in ways similar to those it historically chose.