Romans: I feel like I'm cheating, it's so easy!

[Galumphus]

This is my first game as the Romans. I feel like I am cheating, it's so easy. It's Continents, Small, Noble.

First, I bee-lined to Iron Working after a quick stop over at Animal Husbandry because of the cows nearby. Then, I plopped city #3 down by some iron. Conveniently, a river linked #1 and #3, though I didn't really gain any turns because of this because I was still building a barracks in #1. Next, I started cranking out +20% city attack Praetorians from all 3 cities. The 3 AIs on my continent didn't stand a chance. I conquered them (~8 cities in all) with the loss of only 1 Praetorian, and that because I was impatient and attacked a fortified +20% archer when my unit was at 4.8 health.

Now, I completely control my continent, and am in an excellent position to, well, beat the living crap out of whoever's on the other continent. I've stowed the Praetorians in my capital and am hunkering down for a period of rapid scientific growth.

Are the Romans supposed to be this easy?

edit: well, I see that the newest patch (which I've not downloaded yet) raises the cost of Praetorians by 12.5%. I can't see how this would materially affect my progress in this game, though. It still would have been a slaughter.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Are the Romans supposed to be this easy?

It's not the Romans that are easy, it's the Noble level that is easy. You have a lot more levels to try!

 

[Zekrazey1]

^---- What he said.

Only against the AI .

 

[Aramazd]

Romans are good warmongers, but you should try a higher level. Also, this shouldn't be in strategy articles

 

[Galumphus]

Well here's the thing! Usually when I play (recent games have been as Chinese or Americans) I just barely win on noble.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Well here's the thing! Usually when I play (recent games have been as Chinese or Americans) I just barely win on noble.

Maybe you should try being more aggressive with those civs and see if you get essentially the same results as the Romans. I would guess that the Roman attributes have guided you into a style of play that would have worked well in other games too.

 

[Smirk]

The only difference between Romans and any other civ is you'll need more units. With normal swordsmen you'll need a few more per battle to achieve the same results, if you bring +50% to a battle with Prats, then you'll want +75% or 100% with regular swordsmen.

You could have also timed the Oracle to learn Feudalism and crank out City Attack I and II Prats. This would have made it even easier, however this works less and less as you rise in the difficulty levels.

 

[Crimso]

I've avoided the Romans for this reason exactly!

 

[Super Warmonger]

Most of the time, I try to avoid the Romans because their strategy is hard to change, I normally go for English
Anyway this is not supposed to be in here

 

[DaveMcW]

A tip for everyone complaining about wrong forum: use the "Report Bad Post" button on the first post.

 

[Cort Haus]

A tip for everyone complaining about wrong forum: use the "Report Bad Post" button on the first post.

but that says to only use for reporting spam, advertising or flamey-type posts.

It is annoying to see "I've creamed the AI on trainer level ... it's teh br0ken" posts like this on a serious strat articles forum.

 

[Oggums]

You can do the same thing with any civ, simply by building more units. But still, I've only played the Romans once, because the Prats are overpowered. The higher hammer cost, with the latest patch, should help balance that.

 

[LawLessOne]

You should wait until you finish the game before drawing any conclusions. While you were stomping out an early continental victory some other civ on the other continent may have been running all over the tech tree. The romans have some early advantages but there is noting like being swarmed by Bismarks Panzers when your still in the horse-and-buggy era.

I am not saying you wont or cant win but it is a little early to declare ultimate victory.

 

[Shillen]

They should have reduced praetorian strength to 7 in the patch instead of increasing hammer cost. A 2 point strength advantage is too huge in the classical era.

 

[sandman_civ]

It's Continents, Small, Noble.

Also, umpteen people win with romans on a small map. Go play a standard map then come back and let us know. I found it very difficult to keep up with the AI on emperor, standard map, continents, 7 civs. Galumphus let us know how it went on a standard map in prince level.

 

[sandman_civ]

A 2 point strength advantage is too huge in the classical era.

I disagree. The AI is too dumb to build enough axemen to defend. If a decent human opponent starts next to the romans, he either pillages the iron source, or builds axemen near the borders to survive the initial rush. For that matter, would you build archers to defend against a quecha rush? I actually applaud the designers for a very well balanced game.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

Yeah, Praetorians rock pretty hard, especially against the AI. The computer will have pretty much no chance against you all the way up to emperor if you play your strategy right. Multiplayers is a bit of a different story. Rome has a kickin UU, but they have weak civ traits. Also, a good human opponent will know how to fight a war against rome. First, he'll try and rush you and pillage your iron before you become a threat. Then he'll build stacks of axemen with combat I to hold you off with (axemen with combat I are at only a slight disadvantage against Praetorians without combat I on even ground). If he can cut your iron or hold you off until War Elephants/Macemen you'll find yourself with stacks of obsolete units and a leader with horrible traits.

Of cource, you'll always be at a signifigant natural advantage with Praetorians on your side. But just a warning: the advantage is fleeting, and if you're not careful you'll loose.

 

[ticktockclok]

Romans are way too easy. I only play on noble myself, but basically I'm trying to beat noble with a bunch of different settings and civs.

 

[Tall German Joe]

They should have reduced praetorian strength to 7 in the patch instead of increasing hammer cost. A 2 point strength advantage is too huge in the classical era.

Nah, that would make them useless. Praetorians don't get the bonus +10% City Attack like normal swordsman. Maybe 7.5?

 

[Oggums]

I disagree. The AI is too dumb to build enough axemen to defend. If a decent human opponent starts next to the romans, he either pillages the iron source, or builds axemen near the borders to survive the initial rush. For that matter, would you build archers to defend against a quecha rush? I actually applaud the designers for a very well balanced game.

You just disgreed, and then immediately said the AI is too dumb to build enough axemen, which means Prats are overpowered. So, which is it?

Yes, I know you're talking about multiplayer, but the assumption should be that discussion is relative to single player, unless otherwise stated.