Romans vs Persians

[Amask]

So the Militaristic Roman trait is useless [troquelet]


That's right. Leaders don't appear that much more often that you have to sacrifice the scientific trait. And the combat experience can be gained by barracks in a couple of major cities and fighting barbarians (especially if they are raging)

 

[punkbass2000]

Leaders are produced at the same rate, regardless of civ traits. 1 per 16 elite victories. HE reduces this ratio to 1/12. Militaristic only increases your odds of units being promoted.

 

[Zidane]

Romans are the best! They are the only ones I use. My guys always become elite after 1 fight and my corruption is always low. Also, despite not being able to upgrade, legions kick @$$! The only thing they have a tough time killing are hoplites

 

[allhailIndia]

Scientific allows me to barrel ahead faster than the Romans to Iron Working and get many Immortals before they get Legionaires. This makes a crucial difference

 

[Sirp]

Being militaristic is a great Civilization trait, and the Romans are an excellent Civilization in the game. Being militaristic means more of a chance of upgrading as a result of combat, this means more veteran and elite units; more elite units means more great leader opportunities.

Further, barracks are alot cheaper. So cheap in fact, that early cities can build a barracks in between building settlers. Non-militaristic civilizations have to forego building of settlers, and thus expansion opportunities, early on if they want to build barracks - militaristic civilizations don't; this is a pretty substantial advantage - early on militaristic civs have veteran units, non-militaristic civs don't.

An added, but not-to-be-underrated bonus that militaristic civilizations get are cheap harbours. Harbours are a valuable improvement, but they are very expensive for a fledgling civilization to devote resources to building early in the game. The reduced cost helps alot, giving militaristic civilizations a naval advantage early on. Also remember, if you want to found a colony-city over the seas, next to some resource, you need a harbour to ship the goods back home. For a colony-city to build a harbour is exorbitant, but so much easier for militaristic civilizations.

Also, commercial isn't to be underrated imho. People expect the corruption to be far far lower - it's not. But it is a little lower, sometimes turning 1 shield into 2; which can make a large difference. Further, the extra commerce is nice, especially early on. It allows you to get that bit of extra gold or research that little bit faster. Remember, when you build your first city, you might get 1-2 commerce. With a commercial civilization you get 2-3.

Also, legions are a very nice, solid unit. They are excellent on attack, particularly because your enemy simply has no counter-attacking opportunities. Sure, they don't quite have the city-taking brilliance of the immortals, but enemies simply can't fight back. You can march legions up to enemy cities, plant them outside, wait until you have enough then attack. With immortals, enemies can counterattack with archers very economically (an archer attacking has a 50/50 chance of killing an immortal, and is cheaper), or with horsemen (if the horsemen are losing they can retreat and thus are very economical for attacking immortals). With legions, attempting any counter-attack with less than swordsmen and catapults seems rather futile.

Also consider the stats of a legion facing an immortal head-to-head. On an open field if the legion attacks it has a 3/5 (60%) chance of winning each round; an immortal has 4/7 (57%). A narrow advantage for the legion.

 

[Chingis Khan]

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I think both Romans and Persians have strong UU but what about the Iroquios? IMHO their UU is the strongest in the game. 2 movement, strong attack and retreat ability allows you to retain a majority of your army which you can upgrade all the way to cavalry! Couple that with a religeous civ (to prevent captured cities flipping) and you have a military superpower custom made for rapid early conquest at any difficulty level.

 

[Stuka]

The Japanese Samurai gave my PANZERS quite a problem! Hmmph!!!

 

[Allemand]

Looks like the biggest difference is the Roman Legionary has a better look to it (nice shield!).

Also, in hills the Legionary beats the Immortal because of the shift in odds.

 

[punkbass2000]

"Remember, when you build your first city, you might get 1-2 commerce. With a commercial civilization you get 2-3."

This isn't true, AFAIK. You only get the extra trade with a Commercial civ when the settlement becomes a city (7 pop +), no when it's a town (6 pop -).

 

[player2]

I'm with Chingis; The Iroquoi's UU is arguably superior to both Immortals and Legions. It has the offense of a swordsman, and the mobility and retreat ability of a mounted unit. That extra movement point is not to be underestimated; if you've ever wondered what an ancient-era blitzkreig would be like, the Iroquoi's have the answer.

The only negative is that the Iroquoi aren't Militaristic, but their expansionist trait makes up for it, IMHO

 

[newfangle]

Ah yes, a good old Immortal versus Legionary post. Well, if a Leg attacks an Imm, it wins 3/2 times. If an imm attacks a leg, it wins 4/3 times. Alas, the legionary takes the cake even though their stats add up to the same number.

 

[JuicyCivNewbie]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
"Remember, when you build your first city, you might get 1-2 commerce. With a commercial civilization you get 2-3."

This isn't true, AFAIK. You only get the extra trade with a Commercial civ when the settlement becomes a city (7 pop +), no when it's a town (6 pop -).

And because shields are worth 4 gold each (because of buying costs) Industrious is much better.

 

[godlearner]

Originally posted by newfangle
Ah yes, a good old Immortal versus Legionary post. Well, if a Leg attacks an Imm, it wins 3/2 times. If an imm attacks a leg, it wins 4/3 times. Alas, the legionary takes the cake even though their stats add up to the same number.

Another problem is that the Immortal has the same defensive value as a spearman. This means what in the early game, untill pikeman come around, Immortals will most likely not benefit from the combined arms military tactics.

This becomes a major problem then Immortals are in cities, defending against an attack. Your best offensive unit will most likely be the one defending against the first attack and thus will be useless in a counter attack.

Immortals do make up for some of this in the Middle Ages since their attack strengh, on par with Knights and Longbowmen, makes them usefull for a longer period of time and their low defense is no longer a liability.

Overall, I like the Immortal over the Legionary, but I will take Romans over Persians as my civ based on all factors.

 

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by newfangle
Ah yes, a good old Immortal versus Legionary post. Well, if a Leg attacks an Imm, it wins 3/2 times. If an imm attacks a leg, it wins 4/3 times. Alas, the legionary takes the cake even though their stats add up to the same number.

Though your stats are correct, I disagree with the analysis and conclusion. If you conduct your military operation well, you will nearly always find your Immortals and Legions on the offensive, thus the value of an extra defense point is negligible. Admittedly, if the two come against each other, the Legion has the advantage, but other wise I think that you will find the 4 offense to be a greater relative advantage over the 3 defense. You can't depend on the hope that the Persians and Romans will start near each other.