Rome First Look (Trajan) Video

[gunnergoz]

I was excited for the new Greece and now I have to wonder if I might not want to play Rome instead because it seems so well balanced for expansion and then holding ground.
I am curious at what Rome's Agenda will be when under AI control. I'm going to guess it will be something like, "Rome resents any empire that has fewer cities on the same continent as Rome." This would make Rome want to go after city states and smaller empires than itself, which is fairly historic. But who knows??? Civ VI does make me want to role play some of these civilizations by adhering to their stated agenda. It would push me out of my comfort zone and force me to play in styles I normally don't adopt, like warmonger.

 

[cakes]

firaxis are allowed to idealise figures as what happened much in the history of portraiture. i don't know what the fuss is

i think the tall kind of wise, administrator look is good and suits the civ better than some stocky manlet. the armour is enough to suggest a warrior and differs enough from philip ii's armour to be read as functional rather than symbolic

 

[DWilson]

I often find myself surprised by the random insignificant things people get upset about.

Rome looks like a fun civ to play, and annoying in game neighbor (A.I. forward settle to the extreme, I predict)

 

[stealth_nsk]

Rome looks like a fun civ to play, and annoying in game neighbor (A.I. forward settle to the extreme, I predict)

I don't think Rome is fun to play. It's early game strategy is totally inflexible (settle as much as possible), most of its bonuses are passive (except for Legions building forts and roads) and it has the early trader/roads/posts part of the game stripped from them. It looks like less extreme variant of Kongo - civilization is strong, but not too interesting and strategically limited.

 

[Thormodr]

I don't think Rome is fun to play. It's early game strategy is totally inflexible (settle as much as possible), most of its bonuses are passive (except for Legions building forts and roads) and it has the early trader/roads/posts part of the game stripped from them. It looks like less extreme variant of Kongo - civilization is strong, but not too interesting and strategically limited.

I hate to break it to you but settling as much as possible is a fun way to play.

Many Civ fans like this style of play, me included.

Not for everyone, you included, of course.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I hate to break it to you but settling as much as possible is a fun way to play.

It's fun way to play. Having no choice of early game strategy is not fun.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think Rome is fun to play. It's early game strategy is totally inflexible (settle as much as possible), most of its bonuses are passive (except for Legions building forts and roads) and it has the early trader/roads/posts part of the game stripped from them. It looks like less extreme variant of Kongo - civilization is strong, but not too interesting and strategically limited.

Don't play them then.....there, problem solved. Plenty of Civs in the earlier titles didn't appeal to me, so I didn't play them.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Don't play them then.....there, problem solved. Plenty of Civs in the earlier titles didn't appeal to me, so I didn't play them.

I actually going to play Rome and I'm going to play Kongo too. I'm speaking about different thing - it you're looking for variety, you will not play those civilizations often. Maybe 1 game as Rome or Kongo per 3-4 games as Greece, America or France.

They aren't bad design like Civ5 Carthage, they are just inflexible and their abilities are mostly passive.

 

[elitetroops]

I don't think Rome is fun to play. It's early game strategy is totally inflexible (settle as much as possible), most of its bonuses are passive (except for Legions building forts and roads) and it has the early trader/roads/posts part of the game stripped from them. It looks like less extreme variant of Kongo - civilization is strong, but not too interesting and strategically limited.

Only the mindset that you have to do everything to maximize the gains from your UAs is totally inflexible and strategically limited. Rome gets a ton of early stuff for free that it seems most people would want to build in any case. This means that Rome can choose early paths that other civs cannot choose = flexibility. If you compare Rome to civs that only get bonuses much later in the game, like England, France or Spain, you should see that in the early game Rome can do everything they can do, and a lot more. In addition, free monuments and stronger trade routes help you no matter what your chosen victory condition is. Again, a lot more flexible than someone getting only faith bonuses or similar.

 

[redwings1340]

I don't think Rome is fun to play. It's early game strategy is totally inflexible (settle as much as possible), most of its bonuses are passive (except for Legions building forts and roads) and it has the early trader/roads/posts part of the game stripped from them. It looks like less extreme variant of Kongo - civilization is strong, but not too interesting and strategically limited.

Hmm, I think its early game strategy is geared towards wide, but once you get past the early game, you can really do anything you want with your empire. I think you can play Rome in lots of different ways depending on what districts you prioritize, so I'm not sure I'd call it inflexible.

I made a shoshone analogy earlier, and I think it applies here, you'll get a wide, early game power, but what you do with that power is up to you. Rome can win the game in any victory condition.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Only the mindset that you have to do everything to maximize the gains from your UAs is totally inflexible and strategically limited. Rome gets a ton of early stuff for free that it seems most people would want to build in any case. This means that Rome can choose early paths that other civs cannot choose = flexibility. If you compare Rome to civs that only get bonuses much later in the game, like England, France or Spain, you should see that in the early game Rome can do everything they can do, and a lot more. In addition, free monuments and stronger trade routes help you no matter what your chosen victory condition is. Again, a lot more flexible than someone getting only faith bonuses or similar.

Of course you could ignore civ unique and play other playstyles (except for founding religion as Kongo), but this have nothing to do with the civ itself. Yes, I could play religion-focused game with Rome, but it will be no different than religious game of half of the other civs. And yes, Rome gets a lot of stuff for free - that's what I call passive bonuses.

Civilization has interesting gameplay if:

1. Some parts of gameplay require different strategic decisions than for other civs. For example, district placement as Japan; unique district and improvement placements; policy card and government choice as Greece; choosing governments for America etc.

2. Some parts of gameplay don't exist for other civilizations, for example India's spreading of foreign religions.

EDIT:

Hmm, I think its early game strategy is geared towards wide, but once you get past the early game, you can really do anything you want with your empire.

Yes. Without any civilization-specific strategy choices.

 

[footslogger]

I don't understand the advantage of starting with a trading post. Presumably Rome has no trade routes at this point. Does a trading post grant gold without a trade route? If not, what's the benefit? When Rome does get a trade route the trading post will come automatically.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't understand the advantage of starting with a trading post. Presumably Rome has no trade routes at this point. Does a trading post grant gold without a trade route? If not, what's the benefit? When Rome does get a trade route the trading post will come automatically.

Where did you get what the Rome has no trade routes? Trader requires Foreign Trade civic which is right behind Code of Laws. And with free Monuments Rome will progress through civic tree quite fast.

EDIT:

Just to clarify. Each newly build city receives a trading post. You could build cities for quite long time. You could use those trading posts throughout the whole game.

 

[BornInTheLoo]

I don't understand the advantage of starting with a trading post. Presumably Rome has no trade routes at this point. Does a trading post grant gold without a trade route? If not, what's the benefit? When Rome does get a trade route the trading post will come automatically.

Details on trading posts have been a bit shimmy so far, but it is expected they prove some line of sight in cities other than your own (and possibly gossip). So they will be effective without trade routes.

When you do have a trade route, it is important to note that trade posts also grant money for trade routes passing trough them. So with Rome you can immediately send a trade route to the city farthest away and get the added gold of the trade posts that the trade route passes in between.

 

[footslogger]

Where did you get what the Rome has no trade routes?

My point is what use is a trading post if you don't have trade routes yet because you haven't established any by sending out traders - and once you have trade routes you get a trading post automatically (AFAIK) so what is the benefit of getting it early?

Edit: thanks BornInTheLoo, that makes more sense to me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

My point is what use is a trading post if you don't have trade routes yet because you haven't established any by sending out traders - and once you have trade routes you get a trading post automatically (AFAIK) so what is the benefit of getting it early?

Edit: thanks BornInTheLoo, that makes more sense to me.

Oh, I see

Actually trading post appears after trade route is finished, so that's quite late. Also, Rome has ability about more gold from trading posts you pass in your routes, so this should be clear.

 

[Stauffenberg]

I wonder how it will be to play the Romans in MP games. You know that the Romans will be very very dangerous if left alone so if you find them as a neighbour you need to do something about them asap. Won't the Romans be a red flag to the other civs. You feel like you have to attack theirt cities or at least harass them to slow their expansion. Other civs might catch up later in the game if they can hamper the Romans initial advantage.

I'm sure Quill18 will love the Romans. He used to build monuments as a first build in his civ 5 games. Now the game does it for him if he plays the Romans. It means the Roman borders will expand faster than anyone else and they get a cultural advantage it will be hard to catch up with. The Romans will storm through the civics tree early on when the bonuses from monuments really matters.

Rome would be the perfect civ for me if I wanted to play a peaceful expansionist civ 6 on prince or lower difficulty settings. You can claim so much territory compared to the other civs and then build some military units to scare off any AI civs. How can you lose as the Romans when you get free monuments, trading posts and roads?

This is probably a very accurate depiction of the real Romans since they created the biggest civilization in the world after Russia. Quick expansion backed by strong legions who can move into forts to protect their conquests seems very Roman to me. Now we can even build Hadrian's wall with the Romans.

To me Rome seems like the strongest of all civs if played by a human against the AI. In MP games you might regret picking Rome because the others will gang up on you.

However, I put some faith in Ed Beach'es AI automated game balance testing program. If Rome really was that powerful they would have seen it there and nerfed Rome until it became balanced with the other civs. However, humans tend to exploit civ abilities much better than any AI does.

 

[footslogger]

I can't see the advantage of having forts to protect territory unless built at chokepoints or in a long string close together. In any other circumstances I see nothing to stop opponents just going round them.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I'm disappointed. Trajan was a hint towards a more military-focused Rome... but it's still the same builder civ.

It's not so bad I guess since it's still Rome, but why picking Trajan then ? Trajan column was supposed to celebrated his vicotry against the Dacians ! It's not a gratuitous monument. In Trajan Rome, you should be encouraged to conquer other civs, not to build cities.

Trajan was a warmonger who actually impoverished a lot of cities in the Empire, and only embellished Rome and Italy (heck, he even wrote that on the coins he printed : Italia Restituta - he didn't care about the rest of the Empire).

It is a complete contradiction. Those bonus are off. I was still hesitating to pre-pruchase... Now I know I won't.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I can't see the advantage of having forts to protect territory unless built at chokepoints or in a long string close together. In any other circumstances I see nothing to stop opponents just going round them.

Forts are excellent place to put your ranged units in. With the bonuses they'll catch up in melee strength with melee units of the same era (especially if the fort is built in the right place), while shooting right and left.

I'm disappointed. Trajan was a hint towards a more military-focused Rome... but it's still the same builder civ.

Civ5 Rome was heavy military one with 2UU (1 being siege) and ability which works best with puppets. It's time for Civ6 Rome to be different, especially with Trajan being known as builder as much as the warrior.